Political Buzz – 2011
posted by Michael Chihak
Population equality and congruity are two of the six requirements to be met for Arizona to redraw its congressional and legislative district boundaries. And they are the two least likely to be in conflict with one another.
The other four criteria are where the contentiousness will come in. And there will be contention, starting Wednesday, when the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission begins the public discussion about the mapping process.
Still to be injected into the map-making process are the requirements of the U.S. Voting Rights Act, communities of interest, geographic and municipal boundary considerations and competitiveness.
Satisfying any one of those requirements almost automatically leads to conflict with one or more of the others. Add to that the political tug-of-war that has already begun in earnest, and the commission will find itself in a no-win situation before long.
That was the same the first time around for the previous commission, when it redrew boundaries after the 2000 census. It took three years to get a map that passed all court challenges and another four years before final appeals were exhausted.
Nearly in time to start the whole process again.
August 16th 2011 at 12:28 —
c (0) —
K
f
g
k
posted by Michael Chihak
![Alt text][arizona-flag]
The real work begins now.
The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission has produced maps of congressional and legislative districts as starting points for the reshaping of the state into nine congressional districts, up from the current eight, and 30 legislative districts, the same as now.
The Arizona Capitol Times reported over the weekend that the commission will meet Wednesday through Friday of this week to adopt one congressional map and one legislative map to begin making alterations to them.
The Capitol Times reported that the consulting firm hired by the commission to do the mapping produced two congressional and two legislative maps, both meeting two of the six criteria for redistricting -- equal populations and contiguity.
The other criteria are compliance with the U.S. Voting Rights Act, respecting geographical and municipal boundaries, respecting communities of interest and promoting competitiveness.
August 15th 2011 at 9:25 —
c (0) —
K
f
g
k
posted by Christopher Conover
Last week, Senator John McCain held two town hall meetings in Arizona. What did the Senator say at those events? What were his solutions to problems? Those are questions that were not answered in most reports. Instead what was remarked on was anger at the meetings.
At the Tucson town hall, when McCain talked about reducing the corporate income tax, one attendee yelled, “You’re an idiot.” There were also boos when McCain came in and plenty of catcalls between members of the audience.
As pointed out inPolitico anger wasn’t found at just the McCain town halls. Some said the national anger at most members of Congress, regardless of party, reminded them of the emotion during the town halls on health care two summers ago. Or even the last election cycle, something I’ve written about before.
Just days after the January 8th shooting, President Obama came to Tucson to speak. At the time he said, “But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” The shouting is back, if it ever really left.
Dr. Susan McManus, a political science professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa says some of the shouting may be due to the fact that Americans don’t feel like Congress is listening so they are resorting to shouting. Not all the shouting is at elected officials, but also at each other during the meetings. Attendees are telling each other to sit down or to shut up.
Will the yelling continue through this election season? Will the anger translate into changes in who represents us? Only time will tell.
August 14th 2011 at 22:25 —
c (0) —
K
f
g
k
posted by Michael Chihak
Among U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake's notable stances in Congress is that against earmarks and pork barrel spending. That is, special funding inserted into bills to get the vote of the member of Congress whose state or district will benefit.
That's why Flake was quick to criticize Will Cardon this week for Cardon's declamation that while he opposes such spending, Arizona should get its fair share of federal revenues back.
The Arizona Capitol Times spells out the argument in a story today. (Subscription may be needed to view Capitol Times' stories)
The Capitol Times quotes Cardon as saying: “I oppose earmarks. I oppose going through the back door. But I’m a believer in transparency and up-and-down votes for projects in the Senate that will benefit Arizona and create jobs. I think what we need now is to create jobs in Arizona. And we need someone in Washington who knows how to do that.”
And from the Capitol Times, Flake's rejoinder, in a fund-raising appeal e-mail: “Wow! We’re more than $14 trillion in debt, we’re running an annual deficit of more than $1 trillion, we’ve just had our credit rating downgraded for the first time in our history, and somebody still wants to return to the days of pork barrel spending? As a congressman, I’ve been a fiscal hawk.”
August 12th 2011 at 10:00 —
c (0) —
K
f
g
k
posted by Christopher Conover
The Hill, a newspaper dedicated to covering Capitol Hill in Washington, DC is known for having the inside scoop on what is going on in Congress. And for the eight year in a row it has a beautiful people section.
The Hill staff put together a photo shoot and wrote biographies of those they deemed to be the 50 most beautiful people working in, on, and around Capitol Hill. Information for readers includes the person’s name, hometown, political party and relationship status.
One Arizona staffer made the list this year. Cassiopeia Sonn ,who works for Arizona Congressman John Shadegg, is number 29.
August 11th 2011 at 16:57 —
c (0) —
K
f
g
k
posted by Michael Chihak
Like mushrooms sprouting after heavy rain, political signs are appearing all over Tucson, on the eve of the primary election.
In recent days, a dozen or more "Write in Rick Grinnell" signs popped up downtown, including several stuck into the tree wells in Presidio Park just east of City Hall. Grinnell is a Republican running for mayor.
Signs for Republican Jennifer Rawson also appeared around town, including several downtown. She is challenging incumbent Democrat Paul Cunningham, for the Ward 2 City Council seat to which he was appointed last year. That anticipates their general election matchup in November.
And, along West St. Mary's Road, a big black-and-yellow billboard asks: "Would You Trust 'Payday Joe' Flores?" Then answers: "Didn't think so." Flores is a Democrat challenging incumbent Democrat Regina Romero in Ward 1, and the billboard, paid for by a Democratic committee, alludes to his ties to the payday loan industry.
As signs begin cluttering street corners, supporters' front yards and street medians around town, people ask: Why? Why add to the city's cluttered look? Why don't the candidates spend their resources to get out information about how they stand on the issues?
Two words: Name recognition.
And two more words: Write-in candidate.
Grinnell needs 1,060 write-in votes in the primary election to qualify for the general election ballot.
A curiosity about the signs, as noted by colleague Andrea Kelly: There seems to be a dearth of signs pushing Democrat Jonathan Rothschild's mayoral candidacy. He is, however, the clear leader in bumper stickers.
August 11th 2011 at 10:00 —
c (0) —
K
f
g
k
