Subscribers to this list may be particularly interested in p. 44 of
Judge Field's ruling in the Arizona state redistricting case:
38. Although Ashcroft was decided after the Commission adopted the
Final 2002 Adopted Legislative Plan, which contained majority-minority
districts with Hispanic Voting Age percentages similar to those in the
three-judge federal court ordered interim plan, Ashcroft nonetheless is
instructive in determining whether the Commissionâs decisions complied
with the Arizona Constitution in creating legislative districts.
39. The voters of Arizona, in enacting the requirement of Article IV,
part 2, ¤ 1(14)(F) that the Commission favor the creation of competitive
districts ãwhere to do so would create no significant detriment to the
other goals,ä explicitly made the public policy determination allowed by
the U.S. Supreme Court in Ashcroft -- the creation of ãa greater number
of districts in which it is likely -- although perhaps not quite as
likely as under the benchmark plan -- that minority voters will be able
to elect candidates of their choice.ä Ashcroft, 123 S.Ct at 2511.
(Disclosure: both Dr. McDonald & I are consultants to the Arizona
Commission.)
- Doug
Douglas Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Michael
McDonald
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:45 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Arizona redistricting decision
An Arizona Superior Court declared the state legislative maps adopted by
the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission unconstitutional.
Particularly, the court found that ãBy failing to favor competitiveness
(of districts) as mandated by Proposition 106, the Commissionâs actions
were unconstitutional.ä The court directed the commission to draw new
maps within the next 45 days using as a baseline a map that was
presented to the commission, but not investigated further, that was
later found to contain more competitive districts than the final adopted
map. If the commission cannot adopt a new map within the appointed
time, a special master will be appointed. The court also takes the
commission to task for failing to define broad terms such as ãcommunity
of interestä and ãcompetitivenessä at the outset of drawing districts.
As for the congressional redistricting, a part of the same lawsuit, the
court found that: ãAs to the request for relief by Congressional
Plaintiffs, the Court finds that while the Commission violated the
Arizona Constitution as stated above, the Commission has convinced the
Court that it cannot create any more competitive congressional districts
without significant detriment to another constitutional goal,
specifically the United States Voting Rights Act.ä
==================================
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Assistant Professor
Dept of Public and International Affairs
George Mason University
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Office: 703-993-4191
Fax: 703-993-1399
Efax: 561-431-3190
mmcdon@gmu.edu
http://elections.gmu.edu/