Redistricting push is blocked

Howard Fischer
April 11, 2008

PHOENIX - The Arizona Court of Appeals has rebuffed efforts by a coalition of Democrats and Hispanics to force redrawing of the state's 30 legislative districts.

The coalition sought changes that would give Democrats a better chance to take control of the Legislature.

In a unanimous ruling Thursday, the court overturned a trial judge's decision that the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, created by voters in 2000, did not give sufficient consideration to a requirement to create politically competitive districts, where the number of registered Democrats and Republicans is close enough that a candidate from either party could get elected.

Judge Maurice Portley, writing for the appellate court, said commissioners did consider competitiveness in drawing the lines. He said their decision not to alter the lines to provide more politically balanced districts was justified because they concluded doing so would harm the other goals the constitution requires them to consider, such as protecting communities of interest.

Thursday's ruling is not going to be the last word, and not just because Charles Blanchard, who represents the challengers, said they are expected to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. Voters could face two competing measures in November to alter the whole system.

The 2000 initiative scrapped the system used since statehood, in which the Legislature drew boundaries every decade for its own seats and for congressional districts.

It requires the commission to create legislative and congressional districts that are generally equal in population. They also must be "geographically compact and contiguous," must "respect communities of interest" to the extent possible, and comply with the federal Voting Rights Act prohibition on diluting minority voting strength.

It also requires that "to the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals."

Commission Chairman Steve Lynn of Tucson said that means the other criteria are more important.

When Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fields ruled otherwise, the commission appealed.

Lisa Hauser, the commission's attorney, acknowledged the lines could have been drawn in a different way, possibly creating more competitive districts. But she said judges cannot substitute their judgment for that of the commissioners.

Portley agreed.

"The commission followed the constitutional plan," he wrote, noting specifically there is nothing wrong with the commission considering competitiveness after evaluating other factors.

"The commission considered competitiveness and made a finding that a more competitive plan would cause a significant detriment to the other five constitutional goals," Portley said, adding that the commission's findings were well-supported.