DE TOCQUEVILLE WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE THIS

posted by Michael Chihak

The work of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is worth watching closely, not only for what it will do to political boundaries in the next decade, but for what it says about the dystopian state of our political system.

The commission’s work, beyond its constitutionally mandated goals, serves as both a commentary on and a reflection of our state and nation’s attitudes about majority rule in a democracy.

An outside observer, perhaps a 21st century De Tocqueville, might look at America now and say that we no longer possess the sense of equality that De Tocqueville saw in the 19th century, but that we have retained our sense of religious conviction along with its almost constant companion – hypocrisy.

That religion, by the way, is from the i’m-right-and-you’re-wrong house of worship.

All this has the potential to leave people disenfranchised.

Just do the math: in Arizona, 35 percent of registered voters are Republican, 31 percent are Democratic and 33 percent are registered with neither party, most calling themselves independent. Those are the voters dissatisfied with the two major parties, although disgusted might be a better description of how many feel.

So how does the attention given to the redistricting commission reflect this? By the way the two major parties are striving to influence its independence.

Politicians on both sides are regularly making pronouncements to the media and the public decrying the process.

The attorney general, a Republican, is investigating how the commission has conducted business and has challenged the one requirement of the commission, that its work meet the dictates of the U.S. Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters.

The American religion of partisan politics is hampering, if not obfuscating, the independence, and our democracy is the worse off for it.

AZ REDISTRICTING? DO THE MATH

posted by Michael Chihak

Doing the math is most important when it comes to congressional and legislative redistricting in Arizona.

It depends on who is doing the math and for what purpose. Richard Gilman, journalist and chief contributor to thinkingarizona.com, demonstrared so in an opinion piece he wrote that appeared in Sunday's [Arizona Daily Star(http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/article_6055df29-0b0d-52d3-9eb4-2cd63cb477fb.html).

Besides population equity, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission must draw boundaries that comply with the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Additionally, the boundaries should:

-- Be geographically compact and contiguous.

-- Respect communities of interest.

-- Use geographic features, city, town and county boundaries.

-- Allow for politically competitive districts "where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals."

Those requirements make the math much more complicated, and as is being demonstrated in some early numbers crunching, mean that most maps would have trouble fulfilling even four of the six goals.

For Friday's Arizona Week, we will look at the numbers and talk to those who would influence the process.

MAD SCRAMBLE, AND THE CREW COMES THROUGH

posted by Michael Chihak

Interviews at a law office on East Camelback Road ended about 2:20 p.m. Thursday, cutting into our travel and setup time for another recording planned for 3 p.m. on the ASU campus in Tempe.

Generally, the video crew that shoots Arizona Week likes a minimum of one hour to set up for a shoot. That time is needed to position cameras, set and adjust lighting, build attractive background, all designed to enhance the interview.

Once it's all in place, the rest is up to me and my guest.

In the case of the East Camelback interviews -- two, back to back -- all was well. Nice lighting and backgrounds, and the interviews themselves went well. We did run a little long, and that made the transition to Tempe a scramble.

Crew videographers Bob Lindberg and Steve Riggs and student grips Ricardo Johnson and Freddy Duarte got us packed and on the road in a two-van caravan by 2:35. We hit the ASU College of Law building at 2:58 and scrambled upstairs to set up in the dean's office.

Interim Dean Douglas Sylvester was most accommodating, allowing his snug office to be turned quickly into a mini TV studio. The crew used minimal lighting and stuck with the backgrounds that already were in place.

The was no time for perfection, but it worked beautifully, with a good interview, well lighted and good audio. The dean was most affable about the whole production, and all ended with smiles and handshakes.

Watch the results tonight at 8:30 MST on PBS-HD-6, or at azweek.com.

FRIDAY'S LINEUP: LAWYERS DISCUSS SECURITY VS. FREEDOM

posted by Michael Chihak

The lineup for Friday's Arizona Week should present a richness of opinion and experience on the fundamentals of the American democratic way of life.

We will look at the issue of security vs. freedom and ask if one has to be sacrificed for the other in a post 9/11 world. Ten years after the tragic terrorist attacks, are we more secure? Are we freer?

Discussing the issues will be:

-- Paul K. Charlton, a Phoenix lawyer who was U.S. attorney for Arizona on 9/11. His role changed in the aftermath to one of investigation into the background and connections of a 9/11 hijacker, Hani Hanjour, who had Arizona connections.

-- Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the Arizona ACLU in Phoenix. In that position for the last five years, she has led the ACLU's efforts in Arizona at defending individual rights, including those of immigrants, women and anyone whose rights are abridged.

-- Douglas J. Sylvester, interim dean of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. His legal expertise includes experience in emerging technologies and high technology and their use in the law.

Also on the program to discuss the ramifications of the Patriot Act on freedom and security will be Arizona Republic editorial writer Doug MacEachern and National Public Radio Arizona correspondent Ted Robbins.

YOUR THOUGHTS: IS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION INDEPENDENT?

posted by Melanie Huonker

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission continues to hold public meetings this week. Today it will meet in Phoenix at noon and tomorrow in Tempe at 10 a.m.

The commission remains under fire for alleged violation with the open meeting law and destruction of documents.

The commission’s once-in-a-decade task at hand involves redrawing Arizona’s nine congressional district lines and the state's 30 legislative district lines to comply with the U.S. Census and redistricting requirements.

Currently, the commission is in the mapping phase. Plans call for the commission to submit a final map to the Justice Department by November. Last week, state Attorney General Tom Horne asked a judge to order the commission's two Democrats, Linda McNulty and José Herrera, and independent chairwoman Colleen Mathis to cooperate with his investigation.

This action brings to light again Arizona’s rough history when it comes to redistricting. That’s what prompted voters to initiate Proposition 106, which took away the Legislature’s power to redraw district lines and transferred it to an independent commission.

Do you feel that the commission has done its job to depoliticize the task? If you could address the commission what would you say? Arizona Week wants to hear from you.

Next week we find out if the political influence on redistricting has diminished as was the intent of the voters.

AUSPICIOUS LANGUAGE? NOT FROM AUDACIOUS HOST

posted by Michael Chihak

Sharp-eared viewers of Friday's Arizona Week likely heard me use the wrong word -- twice -- in an interview. The word: auspicious, defined as "showing or suggesting that future success is likely."

Wrong word, wrong usage, wrong placement in the interview. Just plain wrong.

Here's the context: I was speaking with Rana Singh Sodhi, brother of a man murdered in Mesa four days after 9/11 in a hate crime when he was mistaken for being Muslim because he wore the turban of the Sikh religion. I was asking Mr. Sodhi about his wearing of the turban:

"In your religion, you wear the turban and the beard as part of your religious symbolism. But it makes you auspicious, shall we say, and people may not understand that. How do you deal with that ... ?" See it at the 3:48 mark of the program.

Again, at the 6:01 mark, I said: " ... someone suggested to you that you not wear it (the turban) because you would be less auspicious ... "

Early in the video editing process -- and too late to redo the interview -- I spotted the wrong usage and couldn't believe my years! I had used the wrong word, twice. How could that happen? I knew and know the meaning of "auspicious."

The word I meant to use is "audacious," meaning "daring, bold, marked by originality." Its usage in the context would have been more appropriate. Wish I had used it.

On reflection, the most appropriate word in the context would have been "conspicuous," meaning "obvious to the eye or mind ... attracting attention."

Apologies to one and all, especially those of you offended when someone brutalizes the language. I'm usually in your camp, yet I find myself meekly casting my linguistic eyes downward.