The maps are approved but the commission's work isn't done. Today's meeting of the @ArizonaIRC begins in a few minutes. You can tune in here:
After approving maps on Dec 23, the IRC sent them to the counties in case technical changes were needed. For example, if a district boundary split an apartment building, that line needs to move. They'll be discussing the counties' recommendations today. irc.az.gov/sites/default/…
The meeting has begun
Neuberg: “After having the time to absorb it all, I feel really good about the work that we’ve done. I feel really good about the maps that we’ve delivered to the state."
Mapping consultant Mark Flahan says they got responses back from 6 counties. Some had a couple requested changes, some had a couple dozen. They're reviewing and processing the requests.
Last week was the deadline, but ED Brian Schmitt says they'll continue reaching out to counties that haven't submitted recommendations. Mapping team says they'll do their own review as well.
Lerner wants to discuss constitutional criteria for districts. She ways she won't repeat herself on legislative districts, but she has real concerns that congressional districts don't meet all the criteria.
It should be noted that Lerner voted for the congressional map, which passed 5-0
Attorneys say the agenda item on constitutional criteria was for mapping team, which has report for today, but commissioners can discuss it as well if they want
Lerner says her concerns are about competitiveness, communities of interest and geographic boundaries
It sounds like Lerner is trying to lay out possible routes for the Dems to sue over the congressional map
She says previous iterations of the CD map show that CD2 could've been made competitive
Lerner says testimony from Mohave residents who didn't want to be with West Valley, Verde Valley people who didn't want to be with Prescott, show they didn't respect communities of interest
Refusal to use Mingus Mountain as dividing line shows lack of respect for geographic boundaries, Lerner says
Lerner is laying out the history of how several districts became less competitive through different iterations of the CD map
It should be noted that the courts have traditionally given the IRC a lot of latitude on how they balance the criteria. The AZ Supreme Court essentially ruled in 2009 that they have to consider competitiveness, but don't have to make everything as competitive as possible.
The changes that made these districts less competitive were justified by other commissioners based on other criteria, mostly communities of interest. That will carry a lot of weight in court if there's a lawsuit.
In short, if Dems are going to try to sue based on Lerner's allegations about the criteria, I can't imagine such a lawsuit would stand any chance in court based on precedent from previous commissions.
Neuberg notes that the IRC is a democratic (small D) entity where every voice is equal and she's proud of the 5-0 vote on the CD map.
Neuberg: “Some may have some buyer’s remorse and wish for changes here and there... Monday morning quarterbacking does not do justice to our sincere and equitable process."
They've gone into executive session to get legal advice on outstanding public records requests.
In AZ Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v IRC, the AZ Supreme Court in 2009 rejected the argument that the legislative map was unconstitutional because "more competitive maps were presented to and rejected by the Commission." azcourts.gov/Portals/0/Opin…
The court found that the coalition failed to show that the LD map lacked a reasonable basis under the constitutional criteria. "Even if we accept those assertions as true, the fact that a 'better' plan exists does not establish that this plan lacks a reasonable basis."
They're back from executive session
The IRC has adjourned for the day. They'll be back on Jan 18.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
