Thread by @redistrictAZ

OK - DAY 0 - here we go:
Follow Along Here: azgov.webex.com/azgov/j.php?MT…
Comment Here: forms.gle/Vn9rtKnAVFrjsn…

God-willing today is the last @ArizonaIRC map drawing day -

Making me nervous the meeting has not started.

Ah, here they are - just in time - no tranquilizers required.

C York says: we spent the entire day on CD maps and hope you saw democracy at work - from our standpoint - we are volunteers working very hard for your benefit
C Lerner - says I completely concur

NO POLARIZATION DATA update
VC Watchman - will we have report soon -- for our work today?

VC Watchman - should we not have that data available?
Legal says: what we worked out a few meetings ag0o -- FYI that conversation DID NOT HAPPEN in public - and it was not reported out or voted on after an E-SESSION

THIS IS NOT #TRANSPARENCY

Bottom line -- it won't really be ready for 26 days.

Is this fucked-up?

Polarization reports have been regularly provided in E-session. And has not once been reported - even in broad terms to the public.

This is fucked-up!

DRAFT CD version 13.9
population balanced to =/- one person
CD 3 and CD 7 are being tracked for VRA purposes
ON CD level Am Indian to not meet VRA requirements, but watching CD 2 - AI CVAP = 21% --also a solidly safe Republican districts

I do not understand why this does not count as retrogression? What say you @CivilRights ?

15 minute break to review populations adjustments on CD draft version 13.9
per request of C Lerner.

and @marceelias
And @BrennanCenter
and @mcpli

BACK

Remarks before the vote
C Lerner - a difficult day for all of us. March to be said and put on the table. Expressed concerns about starting point and where we were going

Appreciate my colleagues on your right - I know it was difficult. This is not the map I would have liked. We improved it from the beginning of the day. Some things still fall short.

I look at it from a 10 yr perspective - as you do
I have concerns because we are in a different place from 10 years ago - we could have had more competition in Cd 1 and Cd 6

We've made progress over the months - and some good in this map - and some things that really could have done a better job in honoring the constitutional criteria in some places

Wish we could have considered areas for change - like Glendale - this should not be about Republican and Democrat maps -- but what is best for the state

But this is where we are and I am in support of this map.

Now C York - We have more than 60 public hearings - we tried hard to incorporate the interests
The map on Tuesday was a better map for "us"
The map that we are voting on is not our favorite speaker to the commission and the commissioner

Now THE @ErikaNeuberg - from Day 1 she has only witnessed colleagues struggling and always putting the commission first - mastery of information, visions, a "remarkable honor and pleasure"
I understand ea side is deeply disappointed - sometimes it's lonely in the middle

Excited - not perfect - sweet septs - best product we could come up with - support it 100%

Mapping walking through the pop balance excrcise
@ndc_doug
Douglas clean up

Casa Grande clean up & Eloy - 46 people net difference

Trade - net difference of 151

D5 -

Protected retirement communities - a VERY important COI (according to C York)

D 4 - unincorporated areas not in Mesa and Not in Salt River IC -

Single block swaps -- brought to balance -

Barry Goldwater Base - left whole

None the partisan commissioners would move - so motion was made by THE @ErikaNeuberg to approve draft version 13.9
waiting for a second tick, tock

Waiting for a second
tick, tock

C Lerner provides a second - as you know of my concerns - to move us forward and in good faith, I second your motion.

VC Watchman passes
D Mehl passes
Yeses - D York, C Lerner and @ErikaNeuberg

VC Watchman - statement of thanks - colleagues, Madam Chair - and good friend C Lerner
selfWhen I was appointed, and looking at what was happening around the country -

being Navajo - one of only a few natives involved in redistricting - very few representatives - not only representing myself - believe in fairness - 30/30 ; 3/3/2

To what c Lerner spoke to - I have concerns about how we treated the Navajo suggestion -

when I look at the districts now - we only have one rural and Cd 2 is the largest in the country
Important for me to consider the Navajo proposal - we moved very quickly to others

I understand that - in many cases that is how natives have been treated
VRA very important - allows Native Am and others the right to vote

Only a few years ago were we allowed to vote in AZ elections
1868 - Navajo Nation created
1912 - AZ state created
1964 - Navajo population allowed to vote

We are not just gaming and we pay taxes
I am going house this forum to talk about our position - development opportunities - at reservation boundary - development stalls - the only way to get population is collaboration, working side by side w/ state and

federal officials- who have in their heart what is right

My vote was predicated on whether or not I was able to be effective getting a more competitive D2 - and 2 rural districts -

With my vote - I hope the Native community will be given support for native american populations in the legislative map

Looking for fairness - it takes both parties to advance Native American interests .

I vote yes.

C York - please to provide yes and unanimous vote to approve this map.

oooops - that was the other C York -- the real David Mehl

CD Draft Version 13.9 approved by unanimous - if begrudging - vote.

Break until 10:30

And as a palate cleanser - here is the Word Cloud and transcript tinyurl.com/IRCtranscripts
from yesterday

BACK

MOVING to LD Draft Plan Version 16.0

C York asking about population deviation
Legal says standard not more than 10% deviation - difference between highest and lowest deviation can not be more than 10%
Current version as it stands is 8.44

And there is always the option of E-Session

C Mehl wants to be clear - this map could be passed as in

As is --

THE @ErikaNeuberg says Ld6 and LD 7 might be driving this question about population deviation - suggests bringing up Navajo Nation proposal

C Mehl - reminding everyone that this has been worked through a number of times - we've already worked really, really hard to accommodate what teh NN wanted - with a twist to protect the white mountain community

Just want to say - the white mountains have representation

C Mehl suggests moving one small pocket of native population

C Lerner asks if this is the boundary suggested by the NN - D York explains why the border is to respect the White Mountains while accommodating the Navajo suggestion

C Lerner - asks to see the NN boundary line suggestion
_ we have been focused as we should be on LD 6 -
I have concerns about "representation" everyone is represented - they may not like who they are represented by

My concern - as we have been doing these divides - LD 7 - is becoming a non-competitive Rep -
I would really like to - look how to make D 7 more competitive - otherwise we have conceded both districts to only one party -

We don't have to do that

C Mehl - I have a very small adjustment honoring my commitment to VC Watchman to try and protect the native population
Or "I know best" about everything

Not sure specific of what it what here -- but different ideas for border

C Lerner asks for pop split in Flagstaff
@ndc_doug says 50.50 - looking for exact numbers
LD 6 - 36,870; in Flag
LD 7 - 39,961 - in Flag

THE @ErikaNeuberg -does splitting Flagstaff warrant helping the White Mountain Community?

Hell just froze over.

Missed CVAP numbers in LD 6 = 57%; LD 7 = 3%

C Mehl is talking - is he lying?

Editors Note: Have they pulled up the NN proposal?

C Mehl says trying to do right about the compromise.

the @ErikaNeuberg says if you want to draw the NN boundary -
VC Watchman says -- Yes- let's do that
C Lerner - only for Flagstaff - we won't change the "Mehl Compromise"

Why does C Mehl get credit for a "compromise" that does exactly what we wants at the expense of the Navajo Nation?

New Numbers of grabbing those "yellow spots" suggested by C Mehl
Pop Difference - adds 747 to D6;
And why is HE talking so much about this area -- is he expanding his business interests to Flagstaff and the White Mountains?

Really having C Mehl on this redistricting commission to advance preferential boundaries for his own personal and partisan interests is no better than having legislators draw it for themselves (and their donors like C Mehl)

And more insulting because they pretend they are "doing democracy"

What they are doing is a corruption of democracy

And the mappers are still taking directions from C Mehl and NOT looking at the request offered by teh VRA community affected most here: The Navajo Nation and other tribes and nations

VC Watchman says looking to establish X% CVAP and Pop deviation - "getting beyond" that
C Mehl - says all these changes are having an impact on D7 and making it less competitive

C Mehl seems to have warmed to the idea of pop deviations

creates 8.86 deviation - larger than what was in 16.0

C York suggests C Lerner and he will have an argument about how to balance
the @ErikaNeuberg reminds this is about addressing the VRA rights of the Am Indian population to elect a candidate of three choice

Why does she get that in the LD maps - but not in the CD maps?

Does there have to be consistency across the two plans?

Says @ndc_doug this fractionally improves the AM In CVAP

C Mehl - says we have many other district to talk about - let's accept this and move on

Hard No

Green line is what C Mehl was advancing -
comparing CVAP, single race voting age, and pop deviation

the @ErikaNeuberg asks for feedback from VC Watchman
VC watchman - talk about marginalization - AM Indian have been marginalized for decades - - would like to reach out to leadership

OK at this point and would like to come back with feedback.

C Lerner - want to reiterate my concerns about other districts in teh North
Very happy about compromises in LD ^ -- same concerns in LD that I had in CD version - we have very, very partisan districts

people have said they have been harmed w/o representation
the CoCo County map - we need to be cognizant that 2/3 of the population to be represented in an extreme way
D5 and D7 there is away to do that

Now the @ErikaNeuberg says
what is our fundamental understanding of the constitution
when you honor the VRA and take out the dem population, we are left w/ a state so disproportionally republican - all would be 6.4%

Guess she'll get that answer in court

the @ErikaNeuberg says there are inherence conflicts
- Or make as many competitive districts at the expense of COI

SO by this logic are we to take away from this that the majority of COI - outside of VRA districts are republican ?

C Lerner - just pointing out we had a proposal that did just that
::: @ErikaNeuberg - yes and I determined that the proposal was at significant determent to COI
C Lerner - we have made a BIG effort to accommodate the White Mountain - but are splitting Flagstaff

Both In Ld and CD - we have created only one Dem district and none are competitives

Now D York - both cases - our primary interest was to accommodate the native am population - which creates an imbalance

@CivilRights @marceelias @BrennanCenter are you listening

C Lerner - the Verde Valley area - areas are COI - I want us to note in this case in my opinion we did not adequately consider competitiveness - there were solutions offered

the @ErikaNeuberg rejects the premise

The courts will decide - God willing or @marceelia, etc.

Went on Break

While the @ArizonaIRC is on break - I found this:

ADP statement on IRC’s passage of draft Congressional map giving Republicans a 6-3 partisan advantage:

“As the Arizona GOP has become a proving ground for far-right extremist politicians, I

ndependent Redistricting Commission Chair Erika Neuberg has delivered them the gift of the most imbalanced, gerrymandered congressional map that Arizona has seen in a generation.

Democratic Commissioners Shereen Lerner and Derrick Watchman have negotiated in good faith,

taking Neuberg at her word that as Chair she would give voice to Democrats, Independents and Republicans. However, the past weeks have revealed that she was never interested in upholding the criteria for fair and competitive maps clearly outlined in our constitution,

choosing instead to undermine the voting power of Arizonans and drawing a 6-3 congressional map in favor of an increasingly-radicalized Republican Party.

Despite having changed her registration from Republican to Independent in 2016, it is now all too clear that

Chair Neuberg is a partisan in sheep’s clothing. After two decades of the IRC successfully fulfilling its mission to take the power to draw districts away from politicians, Chair Neuberg has abandoned her role as nonpartisan arbiter and

negated the voting strength of independents and Democrats throughout the state. She has been an active participant in the Republican Commissioners’ efforts to achieve a warped congressional map so gerrymandered, it might as well have been drawn by a Republican legislature.

If this congressional map, or a map resembling it, is passed, the legacy of Chair Neuberg and the 2021 IRC will be one of rank partisanship that enabled the rising extremism in the Arizona Republican Party, prioritizing it above the needs of Arizonans.”
###

While the @ArizonaIRC remains on break, I'll share this adaptation from "Alice in Wonderland"

"I don't know what you mean by COI" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty (played by he @ErikaNeuberg in this instance) smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you.

I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'COI' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

BACK

the @ErikaNeuberg says looking at LD 6 and LD 7 to balance VRA and interests in the White Mountain

Isn't that an imbalance at the start. They two COI are note equal - in number of pop or legal standing

VC Watchman reports that the Navajo Nation is open to the maps as modified.

C Mehl now has another change - in central Flagstaff - quick: where to do the republicans who want to run for office live? IS this another opportunity to set up a district for the AZ GOP dreams?

Going N or I-40 - to clean things up says Com Mehl - and now C York pipes in with his rattle

Mapping giving pop details
C Lerner checking deviation - fine w/ original recommendation
D York says
D Mehl -says making this a finished product for this area

Once again there is a bunch of talk about compromise == beauty only after they have blocked off large swaths of the state from any consideration of compromise -- Like all of Yavapai county -- that sacred land is not open to compromise.

You know the "White Man" has often advanced the interest of the natives -- so far that hasn't worked out so well. Not for decades -- for centuries.

C Lerner - raises issues to LD 2 - undo change made on Monday

C Mehl - opuses -- we have spent time and effort - if we are going to revisit districts - we were told to get over 50% in VRA districts - let's revisit Big Time

Also D 13 - Gilbert and Chandler -- they liked our map better

We're ready to go revisit a lot of things

C Mehl wants to approve THIS map to as our final legislative map

C Lerner - we are ready to accept this map - with this one change - w/o this change, we will not

C Lerner - I too have great concenrns about many districts - including LD 17 and LD 4; others as well.

We can go back to what was done on Monday or negotiate other changes

MAYORS - of Gilbert and Chandler -- will these mayors "trump" the city of Glendale?

C York - rattles off why they are more perfect

Legal says motion on the table - needs second

C Lerner - many letters - Flagstaff, Tucson, School districts, Glendale Mayor, Asking for one change - and then ready to accept districts we too are not happy about

We can be selective over which Mayors we listen to

Again, C Lerner - I am asking for one change - LD 2 --

And one more thing says C Lerner

the @ErikaNeuberg as we argue about LD 2 and LD 13 - after 11 months, considerable study - we are focusing in one district - LD 2slight lean Republican - "in my mind"
The other district - Ld13 -a 5/4 district

C York starts in and the @ErikaNeuberg shuts him down with as "excuse me"
I will indulge this argument - but these difference are so infinitesimal small --

ONLY because she has shut down any discussion about big issues - like YAVAPAI county

C Lerner - says it is about the intention split for the sole purpose to create amore R leaning district - very competitive - a 5 pt swing - the justification were lame (my word not hers)

The area of Thunderbird is a commuter school w/ 5,000 students - we could redesign this whole map around colleges - ASU west - 1 on -campus dorm
Paradise, Scottsdale, Mesa -- that is not the issue

Again - I am asking to go back to the map that existed on Monday - or make other compromises - if we go back to the map it is cleaner - And this is the only request we are going to make on this map

and now C Mehl - on D 13 more arguments
VRA compliant
Asks to have motion voted on

SO does the @ErikaNeuberg really want a unanimous vote?

Calls the decision monumental over a percent
does not want to revisit the whole map
Did not enjoy the conversation yesterday - 1/2 pt here and there - can we come together

I live in LD 13 - I am satisfied -- #JenniferChau again

the @ErikaNeuberg says D13 does everything right -- why does that message resonate where she live vs other places - l

Now on LD 2 - 11 month of work is all or nothing over a highly competitive district - random noise

How can I get agreement? There is no value to opening up the map

This is a pattern -- she is impatient and doesn't want to continue and shuts down debate and discussion

So it is clear the @ErikaNeuberg is not a quality political advisor -- says it is not about .25%

C Lerner we can compromise - not willing to approve this map

the @ErikaNeuberg seeks clarity
Dems ok w/ D13
dem focus on LD 2 - 3.8 vote spread 3/6 and we said we will come back On Monday it was 1.3 and dem district - a 5 point spread

Legal says there is a motion on the table that should be addressed before recess.

C Mehl -- says ok to take recess - but if we are taking a look at LD 2 - I insist we also consider LD 13 -- WHY DOES HE GET TO INSUIST -- when the @ErikaNeuberg has shut down the dem commissioners on BIG FUCKING issues time after time after time
Mapping asks for C Lerner options

AS always, C Lerner provides them

C Lerner says - hope our flexibility here is being recognized - unlike my colleagues

before recess the @ErikaNeuberg wants to make sure everyone is aware of the options on the table - including no change

This is 25,000 - C Lerner says EXCATLY - this is my point - we have had 15 maps that did not include this

C York says this was required because we adopted Latino Coalition 4.0

Cl Lerner - note there is an 8K imbalance

And Now D York is defending Deer Valley Village -- is that a client?

Just imagine this process of the @ArizonaIRC and @ErikaNeuberg if they truly valued the Latino community and the American Indian community as vigorously as they do shopping centers, golf courses and country clubs - i.e., REPUBLICANS

C Mehl says we only compromise if we also compromise on LD 13 -
he @ErikaNeuberg now says after 13 months - shuts down renegotiation on LD 13

the @ErikaNeuberg asks gif there are small adjustments that could increase your trust
C Lerner - there are so many things I could talk about - this one district should change back to what was done on monday

now the @ErikaNeuberg patronizes C Lerner -- we make changes all the time and we move on --

Can we just solve LD 2

C Mehl has a compromise on LD 13 - and if you revisit this I want to revisit this

RECESS

Did I tell you they are on break?

C Mehl - before break says "he insists" on looking at a compromise on LD 13. After 4 times the @ErikaNeuberg said she wasn't interested. But now she is willing.

While we are waiting let me just rant about Commissioner Mehl a bit more. As founder of the @SALCLeaders group and current board member he was intimately involved , if not the instigator, or their "political agenda" vis a vis the @ArizonaIRC

We know this because he introduced the @RealPimaGOP created maps into the @ArizonaIRC through the @SALCLeaders as a front. And After the @SALCLeaders staff and executives testified that they must have a republican district because their political agenda

could not be advanced w/o a Republican in Pima Co.
1) this is not a constitutional consideration. and 2) he lied about it. And the @ErikaNeuberg was ok with the lie - and the map - because all maps are political.

And the SAFE< UNCOMPETITIVE Republican LD created? Is a district for @VinceLeach who I do not think lives in Pima County. And after three AIRC processes - 2 of them had appointees with ties to @SALCLeaders (Commissioner Mehl and and the Chair of AIRC #1 Steve Lynn)

NOW Back to regularly scheduled programming

C Lerner - Back to LD 2
One LAST compromise - offered previous compromises - options from our perspective is not a 2/10 change - it was a 5 point change - so here is my last offer:

1) back to Monday maps
2) content C York suggested
3) move N boundary S to Pinnacle

More specifics given by C Lerner
"i see this as a true compromise"

C York pipe up - C Lerner asks she be allowed to finish

The mapping boundaries aside I want to say I SO admire C. Lerner - she is able to continue to stay focused on creating #FairDisticts w/o getting sucked into the emotions despite perpetual provocations - from the three Republicans

C Mehl snaps at C Lerner "excuse me"

the @ErikaNeuberg tries to sooth the tensions - not very effectively

She says LD 2 is highly/ highly compstiitve

The @ErikaNeuberg is looking fo slivers of adjustments

Does she want a unanimous vote or not?

Please C Lerner be strong

the @ErikaNeuberg insults all be saying "let's fight away oaths one point"

C york - rattling off numbers and repeats lame COI, geography and compactness which they have ignored in nearly all other districts -- especially the #TucsonGerrymander

No matter what happens w/ LD 2 - The #TucsonGerrymander and @ErikaNeuberg will be joined forever after.

She shoudl be so proud. So. Very. Very. Proud.

Now C York is talking about a cemetery. Pretty sure there are no voters there.

C Mehl wants to see the suggestions by C York

What a surprise - it is perfectly pop balanced

And we are back to the point C. Lerner made more than an hour ago.

C Lerner wonders if any of her proposals were analyzed.
Respecting mountain ranges - we know we have a district - LD 17 that does not respect mountain ranges.

C York is still talking

C Lerner changes
49.1 - 50.189 = a 1.8 spread - lean Republican
C Lerner says I would accept that -- she says we were at a 1.3 Dem district on Monday

the @ErikaNeuberg says she if forced on LD 2 and Ld 4 - your bickering is not helping me focus

We are here from many votes -- what gets us to consensus - from my eyes - there are lots of toss-ups (there are not)

Can we just decide the boundaries of LD 2: @ErikaNeuberg Says C Lerner - I appreciate your comments- I raise the issue just to show how much we are compromising

This would be a big compromise for us here - and then we could move on

If we can accept D 2 as this - we would be willing to move forward on the entire map

C york can not leave it alone - asks for pop count of this ares = 26.000
and then Pinnacle peak and Jomax 11, 779

C Mehl wants a break - and reminds his interest in LD 13 -- and the @ErikaNeuberg says cool

God, she is just horrible
She is a terrible facilitator, leader,

Truthfully, just may be that only five commissioners is the problem, Although the @ErikaNeuberg seems

to like being the queen of everything, being the dividing vote must really be hard -- although she could try harder to be impartial. don't make me point out the hundreds of ways she has not been ---

BACK now

Now we are focusing on a very barrow band of districts - LD2, LD 4, and LD 13

The universe of open districts has grown -- what about LD 17?

C Mehl starts talking and I am nervous
suggests shifting competitiveness from LD 13 to LD 14 and blah, blah, blah to increase vote spread here and decrease it there

SO fucking obvious - this is NOT about COI or ANY constitutional criteria ::: IT is about partisan advantage

C Lerner says -- are you joking --
But she says it with facts.

Is anyone else insulted to hear C Mehl tell C Lerner what a compromise is?

And now the @ErikaNeuberg repeats her adoration for the current configuration of LD 13 because it serve the Asian community there very well.

C Lerner - Ld 13 and Ld 14 are good -- one small pocket of Asian Am in LD 14 that could be moved --

I have proposed four compromises - I am trying to find that balance - the compromises the Rs have proposed have NOT modified the competitiveness

C Lerner continues -- Looking to increase the competitiveness w/o detriment to any COI or other factor or community -- in fact improves some measures - N/S of 101 income, education, housing difference

C York -- you are talking about competitiveness - I am talking about COI - which is more important that competitiveness - blah, blah

and then uses recreational area -- lots of voters there too - another client of @EwingLandscapes

@EwingLandscapes now the @ErikaNeuberg says not interested in new strategy
Interested in where you are headed with this -

now @ErikaNeuberg looking to shave a fraction of a percentage

That would not increase my trust

Puts the onus on C Mehl and C York - for the first time
C Mehl counters - willing to move pop fromLD 14 to LD 13

Says then @ErikaNeuberg I can vote for this map blah, blah
minor compromises on 2, 4 13

Will entertain motion to approve map as is.

C Lerner - we made a recommendation - very simple - to Increase competitiveness w/o detriment - create a 1.1 % w/o significant detriment - still R leaning - 3.8 - 3.5 will not change our perspective

Now the @ErikaNeuberg says if you have a proposal that dot, dot, dot, has she not done this multiple time this am

Is @ErikaNeuberg a druggie? or drunk? Serious question. This is crazy. C Lerner has done this at least 5 times this am. That would explain so very much.

C Lerner calmly, politely once again walks through the changes

C Mehl - this moves the district in the wrong direction - ad we don't even know all the changes

Now the @ErikaNeuberg raises unreliable data -- that would have been a really good question months ago. Not now.

I think they are going to recess

I see them - but do not hear them

Yes - we are back
LD 2
C Mehl - you've done a great job - you've said the appropriate words
Moves to adopt 16.2 as it stands
@ndc_doug says "as it stands' includes C Lerner edits

C Lerner asked to hold of on motion
the @ErikaNeuberg says no motion would be voted on w/o full discussion
C Mehl says nevermind
C York - we were advised to improve VRA in CD - and we have made multiple changes and have made concessions

Is he really saying that by complying with the VRA is a "concession"it sure sounds like it

And says we have helped VC Watchman treat the Am Indian community - we have already conceded what we are willing to concede.

C Lerner says -- VRA requirements are VRA requirements - they are not concessions - we have along list - I am sure you do too.

We are focused only on LD 2 -- it was not done for competitiveness, LC or COI purposes -- they were targeted to decrease competitive

removing dems and adding republican to this district
-- which is why I keep hgoing back to it WAS NOT .5% -- it was a 5% split

AND LD 6 and LD7 was ok as it was - Those changes were a good option 00 not necessary for those changes -- we do have some concerns (the Wendy Rogers)

home is in that swapped territory?

C Lerner notes making some changes in percentages in VRA districts -- those are constitutionally legally required. - many dems have been moved into fewer and fewer district

This right now is a 17/13 map -- right now we are at a 14.16 map -- moves the state in wrong direction

10 of 12 districts of Dem districts are greater that 60% -- called packing 80+%
There is a pattern -- and more importantly -- this is a good compromise

the @ErikaNeuberg - after that - asks C Lerner to focus on the constitutional criteria

and now a word salad from @ErikaNeuberg - and we are back to 10:00 am

Asks again for small changes to LD 2 that would provide trust or comfort

Is it embarrassing for @ErikaNeuberg to be drunk and stupid on video - for all of eternity?

If the
@ArizonaIRC
chairperson is drunk and has been chairing these meetings under the influence - is that relevant to the coming lawsuits?

C Lerner asks for the data analysis - her adjustment would create a 1.8% spread and creates a 5/4 swing

And C mehl says it is a significant detriment to the COIO - moves it north and south -- lots of growth in that area - not willing to support the proposal

C Lerner asks for specifics -- looks very similar to housing, edition, recreational -- all aligned nicely in LD 3

C Mehl - we've had so much to say on this district for 4 days -0 we ar talked out - we stand by it
WHAT? After really four hours of holding C Lerner to repeat herself over and over YOU are talked out?
D York pipes up about VRA and moving lots of people

It seems as if the Republican Commissioner's strategy is to throw compliance with the VRA as a weapon to get Republican districts as compensation - and the @ErikaNeuberg has fallen for it

Truly stunning insight after a year - if VRA districts are underpopulated to make them

more competitive then the other districts shoudl be over populated to make them more like-minded....

Not a lawyer - but I sure hope @marceelias @BrennanCenter @MALDEF @mcpli and others are paying attention to this

C Lerner - what I really do not understand -- we had a district that met all constitutional criteria --w e are trueing to find a compromise between what R want and what Ds want

Tha fact that you are unwilling to move from a 3.8 to a 1.8 - both lean R -- makes me realize you are unwilling to compromise on anything.

the @ErikaNeuberg asks AGAIN for small modification

C Lerner the change in LD 2 does not change the framework of the map
Side by side

the @ErikaNeuberg says she has not heard a coherent reason

This is just crazy; asks for motion to approve

Com Lerner says they object to changes made to LD 6 and LD7

Yep - here we go -- hte change offered wiht one more adjustment n Flagstaff - was made to place a sitting legislator in that district

Putting that in the record before hte vote

C Mehl makes motion, seconded by D york
the @ErikaNeuberg says I will entertain discussion
C Lerner - It is unconstitutional -; placing a sitting legislator into a district this is inappropriate

the @ErikaNeuberg asks if you are going to levy accusations, please provide evidence

C Lerner talks about need to E-Session to discuss accusation

Going into E-Session

Let's pile on here all the violations of Prop 106 and good government just generally while they are looking at this

The #TucsonGerrymander (for (@VinceLeach)
Liberty move for Rep Kerr
Flagstaff move for Wendy Rogers

All of C Mehl Business holdings
Inconsistent application of all six criteria to save their partisan agenda and personal business interests

Help me out team -- please weigh in

and of course - it's not illegal to lie -- but once you are caught in a lie - redhanded so to speak - it's probably best to stop talking about your high ethical standards

And here is a substantive counter to the @ErikaNeuberg complaint that VRA and competitiveness are in conflict -- they are - but here is how you fix them - thanks to #JaySimpson AZVotingRights
"Chair Neuberg is again using the Voting Rights Act compliance as

her excuse for not honoring her constitutional responsibility to draw fair and competitive districts. This is a false narrative and it is misleading to the public. Yes, the VRA requires seven hispanic opportunity districts and they will be heavily democratic.

But, they can be balanced with six or seven heavily leaning republican districts in the rural areas and very conservative parts of the state such as the west valley in Phoenix and east Mesa. Once that is done, the remainder of the state is balanced

and can be split into competitive districts. She actually said no one has addressed her rationale. This is the third public comment where I have addressed it and I addressed it in my live testimony before the IRC over the summer.

The fact is that she never tried to honor her obligation to draw competitive districts because she does not believe that criteria is as important as the others. The result is a map that has a super majority of safe seats which will lead to a polarized legislature.

BACK

16.1 LD map under consideration
* focusing on a few districts - final small tweaks
* says the @ErikaNeuberg

the Republicans note that there is a motion and a second on the table

C Mehl calls for the vote

the @ErikaNeuberg asks AGAIN if there are adjustments to be offered
C Lerner says I have made four proposals/ compromises - I believe they have all been rejected- I know that the rejection of the two Republican commissioners to consider those -

makes me realize they will consider no compromise.
I do not know what else I could offer

the @ErikaNeuberg says I have seen this changes and those changes seem to impact other districts

C Lerner asks to know specifically what is wrong with these proposals

as @ndc_doug says these compromises could be balanced

the @ErikaNeuberg I have no appetite to go back - I stand by the process - not entertain substantive debate on issues

C Lerner - I do not know how to respond - I can't make an offer when all the compromises I have offered have been turned down

the @ErikaNeuberg giving you the same opportunity I gave C Mehl yesterday on CD 7 , CD 6

C Lerner says I answered that question 4 times - the change here - I do not want it to be on the record that I have not responded - I have four times

the @ErikaNeuberg I am at an impasse - ask one more look at your best option - or just call a vote

so far the @ErikaNeuberg says nothing is compelling

C Lerner says I have no more options for LD 2 - But I do have options for many more districts -- the fact that a compromise could be reached - not sure why I should even try. Happy to go over any of the others

the @ErikaNeuberg says she is ready to vote on specific districts - C Mehl says I have motion on the table

C Lerner asks if Republican Commissioners are willing to entertain any adjustments. Speaks heartfelt that she has excellent constitutional criteria for every one

It should not of ever come to this
the @ErikaNeuberg calls LD 17 a fundamental difference - that is reflects a real COI- a natural constituent - the conversation is not productive

How do you negotiate with a bully and a drunk at the same time?

C Lerner says she has done everything possible m-- many districts do not meet constitutional criteria - because the republican colleagues would not budge on a compromise plan -- this is not fair and balanced.

the @ErikaNeuberg diminishes the day and all the arguments
the vote is called

VC Watchman -- appreciate movement on LD 6 and LD7 - I said this morning I was looking for fair - I thought there was opp to improve performance - NO vote

C Mehl - This is a terrific map for the state of AZ -

11 months - represents public comment and constitution -- a win better than I thought possible in D6 - White Mountains - S AZ - respected VRA districts from Latino Coalition - D17 and D18 and D 20 are great - Yuma is great

More still from C Mehl - YES

C Lerner - Pass

C York - Review why this map is good for AZ in central AZ - blah, blah, Avondale!, D 23 - Avondale/Glendale
D 24 - VRA -- LD 25 -- York is still rattling

C York is still talking

C York is still talking - gave boundaries blah and blah --
Prediction: he votes YES

Yep - there it is. York Votes Yes. he is very proud.

the @ErikaNeuberg says there are 4 genuine toss-cup that throw the balance of power for the state - up in the air - hopes that there will be anew model - following our example -- not perfect - leaves enough unknown

Says the good outweighs the bad - appreciates this that negotiated in good faith - Who was that exactly
Votes Yes

C Lerner - this could have been a great map -- it is not that map -- it distresses me - I feel that there will alway one partisanship - in this case it exceeded my expectations - walking through the const criteria

1) partisan bias - we are at LD 16.1 and CD 13.9 -- a lot of votes -- the partisanship -- only three votes have gone for the Dem maps - I do not think we propose bad maps - throughout we have been working uphill - like staring ten yards back every time

We have made cases to argue why each of the six criteria can be better met -- that map has serious problems - JUST like in the CD plan there were areas we were told we were not able to negotiat e

Yavapai became sacred - although constituents asked for splitting Yavapai - one of hte few kept while -- we were told very early that we could not cross that line - there were geographic boundaries that could have been used

all of these were constitutional criteria
2) throughout the process - I am frustrated - I have hoped for a 5:0 oaths vote like we had on Congressional map
3) Very selective use of geography 0 D2 or D17 - significant barriers in LD 17 - splits school districts and

Constitutional concerns - created in part by a request from a legislator - LD 17 was competitive, leaning Republican 50/50 - is now outside of our competitive range - we heard people

talk about COI -- the initial request was to put Marana and Oro Valley w/ Casa Adobe -- and then what happened -- became a district that joined unincorporated area - which it does not actually do

And LD 17 split Tucson when it did not have to
4) giving preference to some COI over other - VV/Flagstaff and Sedona - did not get the same preference to the people in the White Mountain

5) same is true from listening to Mayors, Supervisors and Mayors - do not understand why some and not others
6) COI were defined - shopping centers - I
7) highways are not always a COI boundary - but sometimes they are

C Lerner - Malls, shopping centers, golf courses became a community of interest - many communities may have a hobby - this does not create a coi - state a federal issues
8) Kyrene was lucky -- we were inconsistent - when we made arguments for school districts

as a boundary -- COI has become far too wide
9) Our maps shoudl consider populations that share public policy concerns - not hobbies or pastime
10) employment areas - C York talked about a Latino community because they "provide labor"

But their homes were not in those districts - where you live and where you vote is your community
that is why we were always looking to create those communities
11) 101 loop - adjusted districts to go over that line - but other districts cut across that freeway - LD 28 andLD 2

12) different perspective in Tucson than in PHX - In Tucson district can go around - but in PHX we combine urban, rural and suburban
13) concerned decisions were made to protect incumbents

14) For these reasons I sadly vote NO.

Now the @ErikaNeuberg says she realized C Lerner was outvoted - but the Republicans understood her vision better

I hear accusations at a sensitive time - I stand by the process - I do not know where an incumbent live and don't care

Its stunning to how little sitting MOC have been involved - this is close to a real quote from the @ErikaNeuberg

Admin change to make LD 5 and LD 1 numbering so Precostt is in LD 1
Mehl moves and York Seconds
what was the vote?
@ndc_doug says pending non-substantive administrative clean up

@ndc_doug asks about publishing new version w/ new numbering

Next meeting date: Jan 4 8:00

Adjourning

What an amazingly, horrible, very bad process.

Not surprisingly it yielded pretty sucky maps.

Going to go care for the wounded and bury the dead.

See you soon.