Home  / News / Press Releases

Nov 26, 2011

MYTHS vs. FACTS: AZ redistricting

Even after last week’s major defeat in the Arizona Supreme Court, Gov. Brewer and Republican politicians are still seeking new ways to control or even dismantle the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission so they can get congressional and legislative maps that protect the GOP's power grip on Arizona.

Some of these politicians have been caught by The Republic’s AZ Fact Check (Gov. Brewer, former Senate President Russell Pearce, and Rep. Terri Proud) spreading falsehoods in their attacks on this independent commission and its work.

The press and public should be on alert for the myths below, which are among the most common GOP falsehoods about redistricting. The accompanying facts are backed up by independent sources (links provided).

MYTHS vs. FACTS compiled by the non-partisan Grand Canyon Institute:

MYTH: AIRC Chairwoman Colleen Mathis is a Democrat who was put on the commission as an “Independent.”
FACT: Mathis is a registered Independent and attended and worked at the 1988 Republican National Convention.

MYTH: Chairwoman Mathis omitted her husband’s connection to a Democratic politician on her application to serve on the commission.
FACT: AIRC commissioners were not asked to provide any information about their spouse’s political activities or affiliations. Mathis’s husband has connections to both political parties. He worked at the 1988 Republican National Convention, served as an aide to U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and has made contributions to both Republican and Democratic candidates. The Mathises also attended President George W. Bush's inauguration in 2001.

MYTH: The commission conspired to choose a Democratic consulting firm as its mapping consultant.
FACT: To stay true to the goals of Proposition 106, AIRC commissioners used the state procurement process to select its mapping and legal consultants. The procurement process is designed to ensure fairness and select vendors based on their qualifications and experience – and not political ties. By using the procurement process, AIRC commissioners chose consultants with both Democratic and Republican ties. Although the state procurement rules require confidentiality during the review process, the procurement file has since been opened to the public. Their most relevant parts were posted on the commission’s Web site, www.azredistricting.org. The commissioners selected Strategic Telemetry as the AIRC’s mapping consultant. The firm received high marks from all AIRC commissioners during the procurement process. Although it has worked with Democratic and Independent political candidates in the past, the firm has worked on redistricting issues for more than two decades. Notably, the firm’s public input manager, who will actively seek input from Arizona residents, served as the associate political director for President George W. Bush.   MYTHS vs. FACTS compiled from independent sources (see citations)

MYTHS vs. FACTS supported by independent sources (see citations)

MYTH: Republicans get a raw deal in the draft congressional map.
FACTS: Just like Arizona’s current congressional map, the new draft map has four safe Republican districts and two safe Democratic districts. What’s different is that the draft map has three competitive districts instead of two. These three competitive districts are 50/50, toss-up districts. This is what competition means. (USA Today, 11/3/11)

MYTH: Chairwoman Mathis made sure Democrats got what they wanted in the draft congressional map. 

FACTS: In fact, Democrats made two key demands and lost on both counts: Democrats stridently opposed three border districts, for example, but the Republican commissioners wanted them and the independent chairwoman sided with the Republicans. Democrats also pushed hard for four competitive districts, but the independent chairwoman sided with the Republicans and the draft map only ended up with three toss-up districts. (Arizona Daily Star, 9/28/11)

MYTH: The proof that this commission favors Dems is that the draft map forces incumbent Reps. Quayle and Schweikert into a GOP primary.
FACTS: Quayle actually lives in the new CD9 (a toss-up district) but that's irrelevant. By law, incumbent politicians are to receive no consideration whatsoever in the drawing of new boundaries. Asking or expecting the commission to draw Quayle and Schweikert into separate congressional districts would be asking the commission to break the law. The constitution requires the commission to start drawing the lines from scratch every 10 years, not to simply tweak the existing boundaries on behalf of incumbents. (Arizona Constitution, Article 4, Part 2, Section 1)

MYTH: The new CD9 is a “designer district” that is gerrymandered to help Democrats.
FACTS: Independents are by far the fastest growing segment of Arizona voters. The most recent Census population growth resulted in Arizona gaining an additional congressional district, for a total of nine. But in Maricopa County, which has about 3.8 million people, there isn’t a single competitive/toss-up district where independents have a true voice. The new CD9 on the draft map is a district where independents hold the largest share of voter registration and Republicans are second, followed by Democrats. Based on past voter performance, Democratic and Republican candidates each pull roughly 50 percent of the vote in this region. This a competitive, toss-up district. (AIRC Competitiveness Data Table)

MYTH: Competitiveness is the 6th and last constitutional criterion for AIRC and has less weight than other criteria.
FACTS: The Arizona Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that competitiveness is equal to the other criteria. (Arizona Supreme Court opinion)

MYTH: A congressional district should be a homogenous “community of interest.” The draft map's grouping of a community like Fountain Hills into a district with Lake Havasu, for example, violates this constitutional criterion. 

FACTS: Republicans are pushing a purposeful misuse of the “communities of interest” criterion. Congressional districts in and of themselves are not communities of interest. For example, in Arizona's current congressional map, Lake Havasu is in the same district as Peoria -- what do they have in common? A congressional district has 710,000 people, and in a state as large and diverse as Arizona, it’s impossible to have homogenous groupings of 710,000 people. As long as Fountain Hills, for example, is kept whole when it is placed within a congressional district that also includes Lake Havasu, then the “community of interest” criterion has been properly upheld. A community of interest can be a neighborhood, a specific community, or even a school district, for example. These communities should be kept whole when placed into a congressional district in order to maintain that community’s voting strength. This does NOT mean the entire congressional district must be homogenous.

For a more detailed document supporting these facts, see the non-partisan Grand Canyon Institute's "Analysis: IRC's Draft Congressional Map Passes the Constitution's Test"

###