Thread by @jeremyduda

The @ArizonaIRC will begin in a few minutes. You can tune in here:

Here's a link to the IRC's agenda for today, which has a link to watch via Webex, if you prefer irc.az.gov/sites/default/…

Today is the day the commissioners had hoped they might be able to approve draft maps. They still seem like they've got a fair amount of work to do on the legislative map, but they could be pretty close on the congressional districts.

The commissioners yesterday adopted congressional test map 5.0

Last night, the mapping consultants drew up a couple possible congressional test maps for the IRC to consider today. Here's CD test map 6.0.

And here's CD test map 6.1, which is similar, but with the two West Valley districts -- CD8 and CD9 -- rearranged significantly. According to the mapping team, the new CD8 is a third Latino opportunity district, resulting in an "arguably competitive Latino district."

CD8 on the 6.0 map would have a Republican performance advantage of only 6.3%, which would make it potentially competitive, at least depending on the year. Data for the 6.1 map isn't online yet.

Today's meeting has begun

Data is up for the CD 6.1 map. CD8 would have a GOP advantage of just 2.9%. That would be a pretty competitive district. CD1 (north and central Phoenix, Scottsdale) gets a little less competitive, but still has a GOP edge of only 3.1%.

Neuberg notes that some guests came a long way from the Navajo Nation to be here, but there's no public comment period on the agenda, so they can't speak. Ouch.

The Navajo Nation delegation has spoken with Watchman, who will speak to their thoughts on the maps. He's introducing them now.

Watchman says Navajo Nation, of which he's a member, is asking the IRC to consider embracing a 10% population deviation (=/- 5% from average) on its legislative map, which is what the federal courts have traditionally allowed.

This is relevant because the proposed LD6 map submitted by the Navajo Nation is well below average for legislative district population. Average is 238k, the proposed LD6 is about 221k.

The Nation's proposal didn't sit well with most of the commission because it ran contrary to a lot of other things they want to do, like keep the White Mountains region out of the tribal legislative district.

Lerner says, "People are becoming very concerned about the direction the maps are taking." These are only draft maps, she says, and people will have lots of opportunity for public comment after they're approved.

Time to dive into the maps. They're starting with the congressional map today.

Actually, at Lerner's request, they'll do legislative maps first, since the commission got those last night earlier than the CD maps

First up is LD test map 6.0. It uses the Phoenix-Tempe boundary as a district boundary between LD8 and LD11, moves Sky Harbor into LD11, moves LD4 down to Thomas Rd, puts Guadalupe in LD11.

Next up is LD test map 6.1. Main changes are in Tucson area. Marana in LD16, Oro Valley and SaddleBrooke in LD17.

LD test map 6.2 puts Marana, Oro Valley and SaddleBrooke in one district, as Mehl has heavily emphasized. That gives us a pretty weird looking LD16.

There's also LD test map 6.3, which was based on southern Arizona districts proposed by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council late yesterday

LD test map 6.3

Mehl likes the SALC map best. He's a founding member of SALC, it should be noted.

Lerner likes 6.1. That'll be a nonstarter with Mehl, who's repeatedly said Marana and Oro Valley need to be together. Lerner isn't convinced, says they're different communities.

Lerner says she was willing to consider 6.3 because of Mehl's relationship with SALC, but she's concerned with adopting a publicly submitted map when they haven't considered others. “We have 106, at least, submissions right now.”

Mehl notes that any commissioner at any time could've proposed they look at any of the publicly submitted maps

If the IRC is going to consider the SALC submission Mehl likes, he wants the commissioner to consider the Navajo Nation proposal for LD6. Mehl may have opened a can or worms here.

York supports Mehl on 6.3. Doesn't like the way LD16 on 6.2 follows I-8 corridor, says western AZ has little in common with northern Tucson.

Mehl says he only wants to use the SALC proposal in southern AZ, says Maricopa County, Navajo Nation would use boundaries from 6.1 map.

“That's exactly actually where I was headed," says Neuberg, who thinks 6.1 is more competitive, likes the way it handles northern AZ

Lerner motions to adopt 6.1, but she rescinds that so they can go into executive session for legal advice

If they accept the SALC submission, expect to hear a lot from the Arizona Latino Coalition for Fair Redistricting, which submitted an LD proposal that initially incorporated into the map but later rejected.

Neuberg commented yesterday that she was reluctant to adopt outside groups' maps that haven't gone through a full deliberative process among the five commissioners. There'd been more deliberation for the coalition map at the time than there's been so far for SALC's proposal.

.@Steve_Gallardo and @SupGrijalva sent the IRC a letter yesterday on behalf of the Latino Coalition objecting to the commission’s rejection by of their LD map (with an additional 8th Latino LD) and their proposal to extend @RepRaulGrijalva’s district into the West Valley.

The Navajo Nation emailed the IRC on Tuesday to object to the proposed LD6 boundaries as well and said the IRC needs to get as close to 63% Native American voting age population in the district. That would require a population deviation of about -7%.

From a judicial perspective, anything outside the =/-5% range may be playing with fire. Courts allow that range on lege maps as long as they feel there's a good reason, the biggest one being compliance with the Voting Rights Act. But 5% has long been recognized as the limit.

They're back from executive session, which Neuberg says was held to get legal advice on accepting the SALC proposal as LD test map 6.3. She says they are no longer considering that map.

The Navajo Nation also says the mapping consultants miscalculated Native American voting-age population. They counted anyone who identified as non-Hispanic Native American. The tribe says they should've also considered people who ID'd as both Hispanic and Native American.

At Watchman's request, the SALC map is being removed from the flow chart as 6.3. It's still available on the IRC online mapping hub as a citizen submission.

Mapping consultant Doug Johnson says 6.0 and 6.1 both have 6 LDs that performed as Latino opportunity seats on both races they're using as measurements (2018 AG and governor races), with one more seat that performed on AG but not governor.

Lerner motions to adopt LD test map 6.1 as the new starting point. Mehl, who's usually on the opposite side of Lerner, seconds the motion. Unanimously approved.

And they're going back into executive session, because of course they are. This time it's for legal advice on Voting Rights Act compliance and racially polarized voting analysis.

LD map 6.1, which they just adopted, has 6-7 LDs that would qualify as Latino VRA seats. It has 5 LDs that would be considered competitive under the IRC's metrics (no more than a 7% advantage for a party), a couple more that are just outside that range.

In case you missed it before, here's LD test map version 6.1

Here's the map file if you want to go into more detail yourself and zoom in on different areas irc-az.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/vi…

And here’s the demographic and competitiveness data for LD test map 6.1

While we're waiting, here's my roundup of what the IRC did yesterday azmirror.com/2021/10/21/3-c…

They're back from executive session

Mehl proposes plugging the southern AZ LDs proposed by SALC into the map. Lerner has no objection, but wants to see the impact of the proposed changes.

Mehl wants an up-or-down vote on this

Here's the SALC proposal for southern Arizona

Neuberg is concerned about ripple effects of locking in those changes right now. Mehl says it won't change anything north of LD16.

Neuberg says she doesn't think they need a motion or a vote on this yet

For the sake of moving forward, Lerner says she's OK with plugging SALC's southern AZ districts into the map

Watchman wants to see an overlay of tribal reservations on the map, notes that GRIC sent a letter asking to be in a district with Casa Grande and Coolidge. Johnson notes that CG and Coolidge are in separate districts now.

Lerner is concerned that LD17 is no longer competitive under the SALC map. Johnson says the competitive district will switch. It's LD17 on the 6.1 map, LD16 on the SALC map.

Lerner is also concerned that the new competitive district (LD16) won't be as competitive as LD17 is under map 6.1

Lerner says she's will go along with Mehl on this for the sake of combining Marana and Oro Valley, but she has other concerns here that need to be addressed.

Lerner says she's largely tried not to speak specifically from a Democratic perspective, but she's speaking as a Democrat now

Neuberg says she's sympathetic to getting as many competitive districts as possible, but not at the expense of the communities of interest in the Tucson area that have been clear about their desires. And getting a 15-15 isn't a priority, especially if the LDs get more extreme.

Lerner says Arizona is largely split evenly between Republicans, Dems and independents, and wants to try to get a 15-15 legislative map

Lerner says she wants to give Mehl what he wants with Marana and Oro Valley, but is concerned about ripple effects elsewhere in southern AZ. I'd expect some horse-trading on this later.

Watchman wants more discussion on the Navajo Nation's concerns over population deviation and the proper way to count Native American CVAP (citizen voting age population).

Watchman's understanding is that the Navajo and other northern tribes are working together on a collaborative map proposal

Watchman also expresses concern about a possible undercount of tribal members in the census

Neuberg says the IRC has to use the data it has and be mindful of its legal obligations. “We need to stay in our lane."

Watchman says the US Constitution acknowledges a special relationship between the federal government and the tribes, which must be acknowledged. “I’m not saying special treatment, but there is a unique relationship.”

Lerner wants to move Sunnyslope from LD1 (central Phoenix) to LD2, north of there, to go with the mountain preserve in north Phoenix

Mehl notes that state law requires the district that includes Prescott (currently LD5) to be LD1, and suggests those two districts swap numbers now before they fully memorize all these district numbers.

LD1 has historically always been the district that includes Prescott. This is the first redistricting process where that's enshrined in state law.

Mehl: "We should do it prior to approving draft maps" so they've got permanent numbering by the time they start taking public comment

Lerner says San Tan Valley is still divided between LD15 and LD7 in the legislative map, wants to revisit discussion about putting it all in LD15

Mapping consultant Mark Flahan says LD7 would probably have to take in part of Gold Canyon and Apache Junction to make up the lost population

Mehl suggests swapping Coolidge from LD7 into LD16 to make up the population from LD7 picking up San Tan Valley. “We’ve had people request Coolidge be with Casa Grande.”

Consultants say that part of San Tan Valley is 30k people, Coolidge is only 13k, so they need to find more population

They're on a 10-minute break. When they come back they'll get back into the congressional districts.

They're back

First up is CD test map 6.0, which gives part of CD8 to CD1, and gives part of CD1 to CD9 in the north and northwest Valley

CD8 gets a little more competitive, CD1 a little less so

CD test map 6.1 shifts CD8 and CD9 around, puts Avondale, Tolleson, west Glendale into CD8, which wouldn't be predominantly Latino but would be a possible "opportunity-to-elect" district for Latino voters, Johnson says.

CD8 would go from 18% Latino to 28% Latino. 48% of the district went for Contreras in 2018, which is one of the two racially polarized voting metrics they use. CD3, a majority-minority district represented by @RubenGallego, goes from 54% Hispanic voting age pop to 51%.

I'm sure none of you will be surprised to hear that they're going into executive session to get more legal guidance on the Voting Rights Act

Once again, we're back from executive session

On map 6.2, the new western boundary of CD3 would be 91st Ave, which would cut Tolleson in half. It gives up its westernmost portion to CD8, which boosts Hispanic voting age population in CD8 from 17% to 28%.

York likes CD map 6.0, says it doesn't split Glendale, uses Latino Coalition plan for CD3, keeps CD1 competitive. He motions to approve 6.0.

Mehl seconds

Lerner says she can support that. She notes that 6.0 makes some changes to the Latino Coalition's CD3, but it still performs under the VRA.

Watchman says he likes 6.1 better, but he can support 6.0, which he says gives the tribes most of what they want.

On a 5-0 vote, CD test map 6.0 is the new starting point for congressional districts

Here's the new template they're using

They're taking an hour break for lunch. See you at about 2pm.

Welcome back. The IRC has reconvened, and they're picking things back up with the legislative map.

We've got two new legislative maps, LD test maps versions 7.0 and 7.1

Doug Johnson says they drew LD17 to take in Marana, Oro Valley, SaddleBrooke, but it's short a little population, down 6% from average. There's three options to pick up the people they need.

In Mesa, they reoriented LD9 and L10 to split north-south instead of east-west

East Valley based LD15 takes the remainder of San Tan Valley from LD7, which takes Gold Canyon and part of Apache Junction from LD15.

Johnson says 7.1 incorporates all those changes, and tried to "get creative" with Florence and Coolidge

They put Coolidge and Florence into LD16, and to make up the population in LD7, that district now stretches all the way from the southern edge of Flagstaff into the part of Tucson that was in LD16.

Mehl says he doesn't think people in the White Mountains or Tucson want to be in a district together. “Appreciate the creativity, but I’m not too wild about it.”

Lerner isn't a fan either

The IRC has unanimously adopted LD test map 7.0 as a new starting point

Here's the 7.0 legislative map they just adopted

Mehl wants to see Oracle, Mammoth and San Manuel moved from LD7 into LD16

Lerner is unhappy that the Tanque Verde area of Tucson is part of LD17, which runs from Marana and wraps around the the east side of the Tucson area.

Mehl got what he wanted, but Lerner doesn't like everything they had to do to get there. “The goal of this change was to combine Marana with Oro Valley. We have changed a lot of other things that didn't necessarily need to be that dramatically changed.”

Lerner also doesn't like the shape of LD19, which has all of Cochise County, then wraps around south of Tucson to go up Davis-Monthan AFB.

Lerner says she'd love to go back to 4.0, notes they've set that precedent of going back to prior maps when one doesn't work

Neuberg already told her this is the map we voted on and that she should propose changes to the map they're working on now

Neuberg seems like she's getting frustrated. She's asking why Lerner and Watchman voted for this map if they have so many problems with it. She seems keen on approving this as the draft map, then making other changes after public comment.

Lerner says they were clear at the time that they have problems with this map. They voted yes because they were willing to look at Mehl's proposal, but there are still problems. “We’ve seen how this works, and it’s not working … for me.”

York says the reason they reverted to an earlier proposal is because the LD map they'd adopted just didn't work with the Latino Coalition districts. “I don’t see us going back... I don’t think that’s a precedent we’ve set.” He also notes they never adopted LD map 4.0.

Lerner wants to see a comparison with the VRA districts submitted by the Latino Coalitions, wants to know if SALC, which drew some of the lines we're now looking at, consulted Latino communities

York says he prefers LD map 4.1 to 4.0

Mehl agrees with Lerner that they need public input, but wants to do that during the 30-day public comment period. He wants to approve 7.0 as the IRC's final legislative draft map.

Neuberg likes what she's hearing from Mehl. “I’m open to further debate, but I want to be careful, colleagues, that we don’t move back in time.”

Lerner emphasizes that some of these districts are from an outside map that was submitted late yesterday, and says the IRC incorporated it without giving it much analysis

Neuberg may be sympathetic with Mehl, but she doesn't want to vote on draft maps with so much disagreement from Lerner and Watchman. “I am really reluctant to force a vote when there’s strong disagreements.”

Neuberg says they adjourn in 50 minutes and it looks like they won't be able to vote on final draft maps today

Neuberg says they can get input from Lerner and Watchman next week, and from the Latino Coalition as well

Lerner and Watchman will propose changes on Tuesday, and the mapping consultants will come back with those changes so they can vote on final draft maps on Thursday

They're making one small change to the LD map to balance population before they leave -- Mammoth, Oracle and San Manuel in Pinal County will move into LD17. This will be LD test map 8.0.

The vote is unanimous

The IRC will miss its tentative deadline of Oct. 27 to approve draft maps by one day, presuming they can actually agree next Thursday

The IRC has adjourned. See you next week for more redistricting fun!

The plan now is for the IRC to approve draft maps on Thursday, Oct. 28. They'll start at 9:30am and go as long as they need, Neuberg says. “No dinner until we have draft maps," Mehl adds.