IN REDISTRICTING, COMPETITIVENESS IS AN EQUAL

posted by Michael Chihak

(Editor's note: This blog posting duplicates an Arizona Week Notebook blog posting of this same date.)

Republicans say the Arizona Constitution relegates competitiveness to a subordinate position as a factor in how congressional and legislative district boundaries are drawn.

Democrats say the constitution makes competitiveness equal to other requirements in redistricting.

A 2009 Arizona Supreme Court ruling supports the Democratic position.

In a case called Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the court ruled that competitiveness in redistricting is not "less mandatory than the other goals" nor can it "be relegated to a secondary role."

The court said it is equal to three other goals -- that districts be geographically compact and contiguous, that they respect communities of interest and that district lines use visible geographic features, city, town and county boundaries and undivided census tracts.

In all four instances, the court said, those goals are both mandatory and conditional, dependent upon one another and the judgments of the five members of the redistricting commission.

What is required is that they all be considered and applied in the drawing of district boundaries.

The commission's draft maps for nine congressional and 30 legislative districts are now in the public comment phase, which runs through Nov. 5.

Officials of both major political parties are having their say on the maps, mostly criticizing the commission's work as missing the mark on one point or another. Watch Arizona Week Episode 40 here for the gist of each party's argument.