Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 18
1 Joseph A. Kanefield (015838)
Brunn W. Roysden III (028698)
2 BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
4 kanefieldj@ballardspahr.com
roysdenb@ballardspahr.com
5
Mary R. O’Grady (011434)
6 Jeffrey B. Molinar (018512)
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. (00196000)
7 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793
8 Telephone: 602.640.9000
mogrady@omlaw.com
9 jmolinar@omlaw.com
10 Attorneys for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and Commissioners
Mathis, McNulty, Herrera, Freeman, and Stertz solely in their official capacities
11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
13
Wesley W. Harris, LaMont E. Andrews,
NO.: 2:12-CV-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC
14 Cynthia L. Biggs, Lynne F. Breywer, Ted
Carpenter, Beth K. Hallgren, James C.
DEFENDANTS ARIZONA
15 Hallgren, Lina Hatch, Terry L. Hill, Joyce
M. Hill, Paula J. Linker, Karen M.
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING
MacKean,
Sherese
L.
Steffens,
all
qualified
COMMISSION AND
16
electors of the State of Arizona,
COMMISSIONERS MATHIS,
MCNULTY, HERRERA, FREEMAN,
17
AND STERTZ’S MOTION TO
Plaintiffs,
DISMISS
18
vs.
19 Arizona Independent Redistricting
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Commission, and Colleen Mathis, Linda C.
20 McNulty, Jose M. Herrera, Scott D.
Freeman, and Richard Stertz, members
21 thereof, in their official capacities; and Ken (Assigned to Circuit Judge Richard R.
Clifton, Chief District Judge Roslyn O.
Bennett, Arizona Secretary of State, in his
Silver, and District Judge Neil V. Wake
22 official capacity,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a))
23
Defendants.
24
Defendants Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and Commissioners
25
26 Mathis, McNulty, Herrera, Freeman, and Stertz solely in their official capacities
27 (collectively “the Commission”) hereby move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
28
FINAL
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 18
1
INTRODUCTION
2
“[R]edistricting . . . legislative bodies is a legislative task which the federal courts
3 should make every effort not to pre-empt.” Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 539 (1978).
4 Despite Plaintiffs’ extensive and immaterial criticism of the Commission, their sole legal
5 challenge is to minor population deviations among districts in Arizona’s legislative map.
6 Consistent with courts’ deference, it is well settled that where, as here, the maximum
7 population deviation is less than 10%, the deviation is considered “minor,” and the Court
8 presumes that the legislative map satisfies one-person, one vote.
E.g., Brown v.
9 Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842-43 (1983). This presumption can only be rebutted if
10 Plaintiffs show that the deviation results solely from an unconstitutional or irrational state
11 policy. Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F. Supp. 2d 346, 365 (S.D.N.Y.), summarily aff’d, 543
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 U.S. 997 (2004). Plaintiffs fail to rebut the presumption in this case.
13
The Complaint itself and the legislative record of the Commission’s activity
14 establish that the minor population deviations result from rational and legitimate state
15 policies, including compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) and the
16 other goals in article IV, part 2, section 1(14) of the Arizona Constitution. Of the eleven
17 underpopulated districts, nine are districts in which minorities have the ability to elect
18 candidates of choice for purposes of Section 5 (“Voting Rights Districts”), and the
19 remaining two are, by Plaintiffs’ description, competitive districts. (Compl. ¶ 128.)
20
Plaintiffs allege that the population deviations are the result of political bias by the
21 Commission. However, no court has struck down a map based solely on claims of
22 partisanship, and the case Plaintiffs rely on, Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D.
23 Ga.), summarily aff’d, 542 U.S. 947 (2004), does not hold otherwise. Moreover, the
24 allegations of Democratic bias are implausible because the Complaint itself establishes
25 that the map favors Republicans. Thus, the entire premise of Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection
26 claim is legally and factually flawed. See Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 752
27 (1973) (upholding a map drawn to “achieve a rough approximation of the statewide
28 political strengths” of Democrats and Republicans).
FINAL
2
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 3 of 18
1
For identical reasons, Plaintiffs’ claim under the Arizona Constitutional goal of
2 districts of equal population to the extent practicable (“the Arizona Equal Population
3 Goal”), which simply mirrors the Federal Equal Protection Clause, also fails. Ariz.
4 Const. art. IV, pt. 2, § 1(14)(B). Finally, if the Court does not dismiss for failure to state
5 a claim, it should dismiss for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Rules of Civil
6 Procedure because the Complaint is replete with improper and impertinent allegations.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
7
A.
8
9
10
The Arizona Constitution Establishes the Commission as an
Independent Body That Follows a Four-Step Process When Creating
the Legislative Map.
In 2000, Arizona voters passed Proposition 106, which created the Independent
11 Redistricting Commission, thereby removing redistricting from the Legislature and
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 Governor and placing it in the hands of an independent and politically balanced group of
13 citizen–volunteers. See Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, §§ 1(3)-(23). Two Democrats (Ms.
14 McNulty and Mr. Herrera), two Republicans (Messrs. Freeman and Stertz), and an
15 Independent chair (Ms. Mathis) serve on this Commission. (Compl. ¶ 16; Plaintiffs’
16 Exhibit (“Pl. Ex.”) 1.)
17
Arizona’s Constitution establishes a four-phase redistricting process.
Ariz.
18 Minority Coal. for Fair Redistricting v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 220 Ariz.
19 587, 597 ¶ 29, 208 P.3d 676, 686 (2009). First, the Commission creates “districts of
20 equal population in a grid-like pattern across the state.” Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2,
21 § 1(14). Party registration and voting history data are excluded in this phase. Id. at (15).
22
1
The facts presented here are either the facts as alleged by Plaintiffs or are based on
23 information in the public record that the Court may properly consider. See McNutt v. Key
Fin’l Corp., No. CV-09-1847, 2010 WL 3702509, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 2010) (Court
24 may consider, in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, material subject to judicial notice and material
attached to or referenced in the Complaint) (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
25 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)); see also Korematsu v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 1406, 1414
(N.D. Cal. 1984) (“[C]ourts frequently take judicial notice of legislative history . . . .”).
26 The Court need not accept as true allegations that contradict facts which may be
judicially noticed. Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987).
27
The Commission respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the
Commission’s meeting transcripts, data, and legislative preclearance submission cited
28 herein (E.g., Ex. 1 (excerpts from preclearance submission)), all of which are a matter of
public record and constitute the legislative history behind the redistricting plan at issue.
FINAL
3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 4 of 18
1 Next, the Commission adjusts the grid map “as necessary to accommodate” the following
2 six goals: (1) “compl[iance] with the United States Constitution and the United States
3 voting rights act”; (2) “equal population to the extent practicable”; (3) ”geographic[]
4 compact[ness] and contiguous[ness] to the extent practicable”; (4) respect for
5 “communities of interest to the extent practicable”; (5) use of “visible geographic
6 features, city, town and county boundaries, and undivided census tracts” to the extent
7 practicable; and (6) “[t]o the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored
8 where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals.” Id. at (14)
9 (emphasis added).
10
After adjusting for the six constitutional goals, the Commission enters the third
11 phase, “advertis[ing] a draft map” for at least thirty days. Id. at (16). In the fourth and
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 final phase, the Commission establishes final district boundaries and certifies the districts
13 to the Secretary of State. Id. at (17). Throughout the process, “[t]he places of residence
14 of incumbents or candidates shall not be identified or considered.” Id. at (15).
15
B.
16
17
The Commission Complied With Arizona’s Constitutional
Requirements in Creating the Legislative Map.2
Plaintiffs do not claim a violation of any of the above-stated requirements except
18 the Arizona Equal Population Goal. The Commission completed the initial phase by
19 adopting a grid map on August 18, 2011 by a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Herrera
20 voting no. (Compl. ¶ 75; Pl. Ex. 7, 8/18/11 Tr. at 51.) In phase two, which took place
21 between August 18 and October 10, 2011, the Commission adjusted the grid based on the
22 state constitutional criteria to develop a draft legislative map. (Compl. ¶¶ 76-86.)
23
After extensive public comment and adjustments to the grid map, the Commission
24 approved a draft legislative map on October 10, 2011, by a vote of four to one, with
25 Commissioner Stertz voting against the map. (Ex. 2, 10/10/11 Tr. at 209:12-210:2; Pl.
26
27
2
The Commission’s work in extensive public meetings over several months is
documented by transcripts, video recordings, maps, and data. All of this information was
28 and continues to be available for review on the Commission’s website
(www.azredistricting.org).
FINAL
4
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 5 of 18
1 Ex. 9, Draft Legislative Map.) The complete record of the Commission’s deliberations
2 and the alternative approaches considered are available on the Commission’s website.
3
In the third phase, the Commission advertised the map, accepted public comment
4 for over 30 days, and held 30 public hearings throughout the State. (Compl. ¶ 92.) From
5 November 29, 2011 through January 17, 2012, the Commission completed the fourth
6 phase by modifying the draft map to arrive at the final map. (Compl. ¶¶ 105, 106.) At
7 this phase, all changes were either documented by change orders that the mapping
8 consultant prepared and that the Commission discussed and approved at public meetings
9 (all available on the Commission’s website) or made during a public session of the
10 Commission. (See, e.g., Ex. 3, 12/5/11 Tr. at 154:7-158:4 (discussing change to District
11 2 described in Paragraph 105 of the Complaint.)
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12
At the first meeting concerning adjustments to the draft map, the Commission
13 received advice from its voting rights consultant, Bruce Adelson,3 that it could
14 underpopulate Voting Rights Districts relative to other districts to help ensure that the
15 map would not retrogress and meet the Commission’s burden under Section 5 of the
16 Voting Rights Act. (Ex. 4, 11/29/11 Tr. at 93:13-94:25; Ex. 5, 11/30/11 Tr. at 16:1817 22.)4 The Commission followed this advice and also looked at many other factors when
18 creating Voting Rights Districts. (E.g., Ex. 6, 12/20/11 Tr. at 220:21-221:4.) The
19 Commission, on December 20, approved a “tentative final” map, referred it to its expert
20 for additional analysis on whether minority voters in ten of the proposed districts would
21 have the ability to elect candidates of choice, and directed the mapping consultant to
22 identify any technical changes that would be needed. (Id. at 260:11-262:23.) This map
23 was approved on a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Herrera and Freeman voting no. On
24 January 17, the final map, which included only technical changes to the “tentative final”
25
3
Mr. Adelson is a former U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Senior Attorney,
26 whose team wrote the May 20, 2002 objection letter that the DOJ presented to the Court
regarding Arizona’s legislative map.
27 4
It is common to underpopulate Voting Rights Districts. In its Memorial criticizing
the Commission’s work, the Legislature noted that last decade the State’s Independent
28 Redistricting Commission “underpopulated the legislative majority-minority districts to
meet Voting Rights Act benchmarks.” (Pl. Ex. 10 at 2:12-14.)
FINAL
5
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 6 of 18
1 map, was approved on a 3-2 vote, this time with Commissioners Stertz and Freeman
2 voting no. (Ex. 7, 1/17/12 Tr. at 43:2-8, 52:17-24; Ex 1 at 34-36, Final Map.) The final
3 map had a maximum population deviation of 8.8%, which is the difference in population
4 between District 7, which is underpopulated by 4.7%, and District 12, which is
5 overpopulated by 4.1%. (See Pl. Ex. 13.)
Although Republicans comprise 54.3% of registered voters,5 56.7% of the districts
6
7 are Republican plurality (17 out of 30). (Compl. ¶ 110 (defining a Republican-plurality
8 district as one “in which more voters are registered with the Republican Party than with
9 any other party”)) Democrats comprise 45.7% of registered voters, but only 43.3% of
10 districts are Democratic plurality (13 out of 30).
(Compl. ¶ 112.6)
According to
11 Plaintiffs, only one of the 17 Republican plurality districts is competitive, District 18.
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 (Compare Compl. ¶ 110, with id. ¶ 128.) Plaintiffs define a competitive district as one in
13 which “a candidate of either party with a reasonably well-run campaign ha[s] a chance of
14 winning election.” (Compl. ¶ 127.) Thus, based on Plaintiffs’ allegations, the final map
15 essentially assures that 16 of the 30 legislative districts (53.33%) will elect Republicans.
16 Plaintiffs also consider three of the 13 Democratic plurality districts to be competitive,
17 Districts 8, 9, and 10.
(Compare Compl. ¶ 112, with id. ¶ 128.)
Thus, based on
18 Plaintiffs’ allegations, the final map essentially assures that only ten of the 30 legislative
19 districts will elect Democrats. Under Plaintiffs’ characterization of the districts, the
20 Republicans could elect candidates in 16 to 20 of the 30 legislative districts, and the
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
(Ex. 8 (Sec’y of State’s March 1, 2012 voter registration report,
http://www.azsos.gov/election/voterreg/Active_Voter_Count.pdf).)
The Commission
requests that the Court take judicial notice of this public record. See supra note 1.
The Republican percentage is the number of registered Republicans divided by the
sum of registered Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic percentage is the number
of registered Democrats divided by the number of Registered Republicans and
Democrats.
Voters not registered as Republican or Democrat are excluded.
6
Although Paragraph 112 erroneously lists District 13 as a Democratic-plurality
district, Paragraph 110 correctly lists it as a Republican-plurality district. This is shown
by the fact that District 13 is 41.2% Republican and 25.3% Democrat. (Pl. Ex. 14.) Also,
two of the other districts that Plaintiffs identify as Democratic-plurality, Districts 19 and
26, in fact have a plurality of voters registered as other than Republican or Democrat.
(Id.) This Motion will omit District 13 from the list of Democrat-plurality districts, but
will count Districts 19 and 26 because they are listed in Paragraph 112.
FINAL
6
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 7 of 18
1 Democrats could elect candidates in ten to 14 districts.
2
C.
3
4
The Final Map’s Compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
Was Confirmed by the United States Department of Justice.
The final map includes ten Voting Rights Districts: Districts 2, 3, 4, 7, 19, 24, 26,
5 27, 29, 30. (Ex. 1 at 76.) The Commission had been advised to attempt to create ten such
6 districts to avoid retrogression. (Ex. 4, 11/29/11 Tr. at 105:5-8.) The Commission’s
7 effort to comply with the Voting Rights Act was validated when the Department of
8 Justice (“DOJ”) precleared the final map on April 26, 2012, clearing the way for the State
9 to implement its new legislative districts, 28 C.F.R. § 51.1(a)(2).
(Ex. 9, DOJ
10 Preclearance Letter.)
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
11
ARGUMENT
12 I.
PLAINTIFFS’ FEDERAL EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM FAILS.
13
Plaintiffs’ claim under the Federal Equal Protection Clause should be dismissed
14 because Plaintiffs fail to state a valid claim based on a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri
15 v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). It is fundamental that
16 Plaintiffs are required to plead “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
17 claim that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
18 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Conclusory allegations are
19 insufficient to state a claim. Id.
20
Even if Plaintiffs’ allegations were true, their claims fail because no court has ever
21 invalidated a legislative map with minor population deviations based solely on
22 allegations of partisan political motivations. Such claims are particularly implausible
23 when the map actually favors, albeit slightly, Plaintiffs’ political interests. Cf. Davis v.
24 Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 127, 139 (1986) (requiring showing of “actual discriminatory
25 effect” and intent such that plaintiffs have “essentially been shut out of the political
26 process” to establish partisan gerrymandering). Moreover, the Complaint itself and the
27 public record show that the Commission applied legitimate redistricting criteria in
28 drafting the map. As such, the Complaint should be dismissed. See Cecere v. County of
FINAL
7
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 8 of 18
1 Nassau, 274 F. Supp. 2d 308, 315 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (dismissing where “the alleged
2 political motivation . . . does not, standing alone, implicate the equal protection clause”);
3 see also NAACP v. Snyder, Civ. No. 11-15385, 2012 WL 1150989, at *14-*15 (E.D.
4 Mich. Apr. 6, 2012) (dismissing where “Plaintiffs’ allegations are facially insufficient to
5 support the legal theories they raise and are otherwise too factually underdeveloped to
6 proceed past the pleading stage”).
7
A.
8
9
Plaintiffs’ Complaint Cannot Overcome the Legislative Map’s
Presumption of Constitutionality.
It is well-established that a legislative map with a maximum population deviation
10 under 10% is presumptively constitutional. E.g., Brown, 462 U.S. at 842.7 Courts that
11 have reviewed maps within the presumptively valid 10% range place a formidable burden
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 on challengers, who must “show[] that the deviation in the plan results solely from the
13 promotion of an unconstitutional or irrational state policy.” Rodriguez, 308 F. Supp. 2d
14 at 365 (quoting Marylanders for Fair Representation v. Schaefer, 849 F. Supp. 1022,
15 1032 (D. Md. 1994)); Cecere, 274 F. Supp. 2d at 311 (“Given that the deviation rate is
16 under 10%, the plan is presumptively constitutional.”). Stated differently, when the
17 deviation rate is under 10%, “the plaintiffs . . . must demonstrate . . . that the asserted
18 unconstitutional or irrational state policy is the actual reason for the deviation.”
19 Rodriguez, 308 F. Supp. 2d at 365. It is not enough to merely show that the Commission
20 could have adopted a map with better population equality (i.e., a smaller deviation rate).
21 See Gaffney, 412 U.S. at 750-51. Plaintiffs therefore misstate the law when they allege
22 that “the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit legislative districts to deviate from the
23 ideal population except when justified by a compelling state interest.” (Compl. ¶ 135.)
24
7
Many courts interpret this as establishing a “safe harbor” against allegations of
25 improper population deviations when the deviations are under 10%. See, e.g., Fund for
Accurate & Informed Representation v. Weprin, 796 F. Supp. 662, 668 (N.D.N.Y.),
26 summarily aff’’d, 506 U.S. 1017 (1992) (The concession that the deviation is less than
10% is “fatal to the one person, one vote claim because, absent credible evidence that the
27 maximum deviation exceeds 10 percent, plaintiffs fail to establish a prima facie case of
discrimination under that principle sufficient to warrant further analysis by this Court.”);
28 see also Wright v. City of Albany, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1228, 1231 n.5 (M.D. Ga. 2003);
Colleton County Council v. McConnell, 201 F. Supp. 2d 618, 631 (D.S.C. 2002).
FINAL
8
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 9 of 18
1
Every lower court case addressing statewide legislative maps with a deviation of
2 less than 10%, save one,8 has upheld the maps. See, e.g., Rodriguez, 308 F. Supp. 2d 346
3 (upholding a state senate plan where the total population deviation was 9.78%); Montiel
4 v. Davis, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1282-86 (S.D. Ala. 2002) (upholding legislative plans
5 with deviations of 9.93% and 9.78%); Marylanders for Fair Representation, 849 F. Supp.
6 1022 (upholding plan with a 9.84% total deviation); In re Senate Joint Resolution of
7 Legislative Apportionment 1176, 83 So. 3d 597, 646, 655 & n.39 (Fla. Mar. 9, 2012)
8 (approving maps with maximum deviation of 3.97% and 1.99%); Bonneville County v.
9 Ysursa, 129 P.3d 1213, 1217 (Idaho 2005) (approving map with maximum deviation of
10 9.71%); State ex rel. Cooper v. Tennant, __ S.E.2d __, 2012 WL 517520 (W. Va. Feb.
11 13, 2012) (upholding map with 9.998% deviation).
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12
Here, because the maximum deviation is only 8.8%, the map is constitutional
13 unless Plaintiffs establish that the deviation resulted solely from the promotion of an
14 unconstitutional or irrational state policy. Rodriguez, 308 F. Supp. 2d at 365. As shown
15 below, Plaintiffs’ Complaint falls far short of this high standard.
16
B.
17
18
The Commission Implemented Valid Policies in Drafting Arizona’s
Legislative Map.
Despite Plaintiffs’ extensive and immaterial criticism of the Commission and its
19 work, their sole legal challenge is based on the legislative plan’s minor population
20 deviations, which are well within the presumptively valid 10% range. With the exception
21 of the Arizona Equal Population Goal, Plaintiffs do not claim that the Commission failed
22 to comply with the complex state-constitutional procedural and substantive requirements
23 that govern the Commission’s work. See generally Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 2, § 1(11)24 (17); Ariz. Minority Coal., 220 Ariz. 587, 208 P.3d 676. These requirements include six
25 goals which overlap with traditional redistricting criteria. See Ariz. Const. art IV, pt. 2,
26
27
8
Not surprisingly, Plaintiffs rely exclusively on the only case to strike down a state
legislative map that was within the 10% safe harbor, Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320.
28 However, as explained in Part 1(D) below, Larios does not hold that political motivations
are improper, and it involved idiosyncratic facts that are inapposite to this case.
FINAL
9
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 10 of 18
1 § 1(14).
Plaintiffs thus implicitly concede that there is a permissible basis for the
2 Commission’s actions.
3
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is deficient, as it largely ignores the extensive public record
4 regarding the Commission’s deliberations and instead relies on conclusory allegations
5 that legitimate state interests do not justify the population deviation. (Compl. ¶¶ 114-33.)
6 But even focusing on the allegations of the Complaint, there is a legitimate explanation
7 for the population deviations, which Plaintiffs fail to plausibly rebut.
8
The Complaint wrongly asserts that compliance with the Voting Rights Act does
9 not explain the deviations. Plaintiffs base this claim in part on a mischaracterization of
10 the Commission’s plan. In fact, 9 of the 11 underpopulated Democratic plurality districts
11 are Voting Rights Districts. (Compl. ¶¶ 112, 117; Pl. Ex. 13.) All seven districts that
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 Plaintiffs identify as districts in which Hispanic voters have the ability to elect candidates
13 of their choice – Districts 2, 3, 4, 19, 27, 29, 30 – are among the eleven underpopulated
14 districts about which Plaintiffs complain. (Compl. ¶¶ 112, 117.) Plaintiffs’ Voting
15 Rights discussion, however, ignores the most underpopulated district in the State,
16 District 7, which is the State’s only majority Native American district. Plaintiffs also
17 erroneously omit District 24, which is one of the underpopulated districts, from their list
18 of districts that afford Hispanic voters the ability to elect their candidate of choice. (See
19 Pl. Ex. 13.)9
The record establishes that the Commission received advice to
20 underpopulate Voting Rights Districts, and the statistics show that it followed that advice.
21 (Exs. 7-9.) The remaining two underpopulated Democratic plurality districts (Districts 8
22 and 10) are, by Plaintiffs’ description, competitive districts.
(Compl. ¶ 128.)10
23 Constructing districts to favor competitiveness is another goal of Arizona’s redistricting
24 process, Ariz. Const., art. IV, pt. 2, § 1(14).
Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims of partisan
25
26
9
The Legislature’s memorial acknowledges that the Commission considered
District
24 to be a Voting Rights District. (Pl. Ex. 10 at 4:7-12.)
27 10
Although not a Voting Rights District, District 8 was relevant to the Voting Rights
analysis, and the public record demonstrates that changes to the district were made to
28 attempt to provide minority voters the ability to elect candidates of choice in that area.
(See, e.g., Ex. 10, 12/16/11 Tr. at 144:6-145:8, 166:2-167:9.)
FINAL
10
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 11 of 18
1 population manipulation are not only unsupported by the law, but they also are
2 unsupported by the allegations, exhibits, and public record.
3
Plaintiffs also allege that approximately 90,000 Hispanics border the seven
4 districts that Plaintiffs identify as providing Hispanic voters the ability to elect candidates
5 of their choice.
(Compl. ¶ 122.)
They argue that those Hispanic voters were
6 “deliberately fragmented off . . . to use their Democratic votes to shore up the partisan
7 composition of neighboring Democratic-plurality districts or to directly or indirectly
8 weaken Republican-plurality districts.” (Compl. ¶ 122.) Setting aside the fact that there
9 are actually nine districts in which Hispanic voters have the ability to elect candidates of
10 their choice, the Commission is not required (and the VRA does not permit it) to pack all
11 Hispanic voters into Hispanic districts. The DOJ’s preclearance establishes that this map
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 is not retrogressive. (Ex. 9.) If the map avoids retrogression, the Commission could
13 leave some Hispanic voters in adjacent districts that may be dominated by either
14 Republicans or Democrats. At best, Plaintiffs’ theory asks the Court to second-guess
15 matters that are within the Commission’s discretion as it balances the various redistricting
16 factors. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 915 (1995) (“Electoral districting is a most
17 difficult subject for legislatures, and so the States must have discretion to exercise the
18 political judgment necessary to balance competing interests.”). At worst, it imposes
19 unnecessary racially based redistricting.
20
Plaintiffs’ theory in Paragraph 122 also fails because it hinges on allegations that
21 readily available public records establish are wrong. First, Plaintiffs undercount the
22 Hispanic ability to elect districts in the plan. Contrary to the allegation in Paragraph 117,
23 it is a matter of public record that the Commission purported that its plan provided
24 Hispanic voters the ability to elect candidates of choice in nine legislative districts, not
25 seven as Paragraph 117 asserts. (Ex. 1 at 76-77.) Because Paragraph 117 is wrong, it
26 need not be regarded as true for the purpose of this motion to dismiss. Mullis, 828 F.2d
27 at 1388. Paragraph 122 is also likely wrong because it incorrectly relies on the same
28 seven districts.
FINAL
11
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 12 of 18
1
C.
2
Plaintiffs’ Claim That the Map Was Drawn With Improper Partisan
Motives is not Plausible Because the Map Favors Republicans.
Plaintiffs’ case is premised entirely on alleged political discrimination that
3
4 supposedly resulted in a legislative map that favors Democrats over Republicans.
5 Plaintiffs’ argument is implausible on its face because, based on their allegations and
6 exhibits, the final map actually favors Republicans. If Republicans and Democrats win
7 the districts in which they have a plurality of the registered voters, Republicans would
8 control 17 out of the 30 districts (56.7%), and Democrats would control only 13 (43.3%).
9 (Compl. ¶¶ 110, 112.)
This is very close to the relative proportions of registered
10 Republicans and Democrats statewide as of March 2012 because 54.3% of the registered
11 voters are Republicans and 45.7% of the voters are Democrats. (Ex. 8); see supra note 5.
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 When those who are not members of the major parties are considered, the statewide
13 registration is 35.98% Republican, 30.24% Democrat, and 32.90% “other.” (Id.)
The U.S. Supreme Court’s one-person, one-vote decisions confirm that Arizona’s
14
15 final map satisfies the Equal Protection requirements. In Gaffney, the Court considered a
16 legislative map for Connecticut that was drawn to “achieve a rough approximation of the
17 statewide political strengths of the Democratic and Republican Parties.” 412 U.S. at 752.
18 The Court rejected a one-person, one-vote challenge, being persuaded that the map
19 “provide[d] a rough sort of proportional representation in the legislative halls of the
20 State.” Id. at 754. The Court concluded that these allegations “failed to make out a
21 prima facie violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” Id. at 740-41. Other courts have
22 since reached the same result relying on Gaffney. See Kidd v. Cox, No. 1:06-cv-997,
23 2006 WL 1341302, at *11 (N.D. Ga. May 16, 2006) (recognizing that politics are a
24 permissible basis for minor deviations); Rodriguez, 308 F. Supp. 2d at 353 (granting
25 summary judgment on one-person, one-vote claim and recognizing permissible role of
26 politics); Cecere, 274 F. Supp. 2d at 319 (dismissing one-person, one-vote challenge to
27 county’s redistricting plan based on allegations that the redistricting was crafted to favor
28 Democrats in part because the deviation rate was below 10%).
FINAL
12
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 13 of 18
1
Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims of partisan population manipulation are not supported by
2 the governing law or by the facts alleged in their Complaint and should be dismissed.
3
D.
4
Larios v. Cox is the only case to strike down a state legislative map with a
Larios v. Cox Does Not Support Plaintiffs’ Claim.
5 population deviation under 10% for alleged political and regional discrimination by the
6 mapmakers. 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320.11 Larios applied the rule that “deviations from exact
7 population equality may be allowed in some instances in order to further legitimate state
8 interests,” id. at 1337, but struck down the maps based on facts that are strikingly
9 different from those here.
10
In Larios, the district court found that the population deviations in the state
11 legislative plans were based on two expressly enumerated objectives: (1) “a deliberate
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 and systematic policy of favoring rural and inner-city interests at the expense of suburban
13 areas north, east, and west of Atlanta,” id. at 1327, and (2) “an intentional effort to allow
14 incumbent Democrats to maintain or increase their delegation, primarily by
15 systematically underpopulating the districts held by incumbent Democrats, by
16 overpopulating those of Republicans, and by deliberately pairing numerous Republican
17 incumbents against one another.” Id. at 1329. Thus, the court held that these express
18 goals of regionalism and inconsistently applied incumbent protection were impermissible
19 justifications for a 9.98% population deviation. Id. at 1352-53.
20
The court’s holding in Larios was bolstered by the fact that the drafters
21 intentionally “pushed the deviation as close to the 10% line as they thought they could
22 get away with, conceding the absence of an ‘honest and good faith effort’ to construct
23 equal districts.” Id. at 1352 (citing Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 577 (1964)). In fact,
24 the Georgia Legislature in Larios did not consider any traditional districting criteria,
25 including compactness, contiguity, protecting communities of interest, and keeping
26 counties intact. Id. at 1325, 1341-42. Nor were the population deviations undertaken to
27
11
Although Larios was summarily affirmed, this “affirms only the judgment of the
28 court below, and no more may be read into [the Court’s] action than was essential to
sustain that judgment.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 784-85 n.5 (1983).
FINAL
13
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 14 of 18
1 achieve compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Id. at 1328 n.3.
2
None of this is true here. As described above, Arizona’s Commission drew most
3 of the underpopulated districts to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
4 Moreover, the Commission followed a constitutionally mandated process that began with
5 creating a grid of districts of equal population and then adjusting the grid to
6 accommodate the six constitutional goals. See supra Part B of the Factual Background.
7 This structure was not present in Larios.
8
In addition, the Larios court did not hold that political affiliation was an improper
9 basis for population deviations. Id. at 1351 & n.15. Rather, the court stated that it did
10 not “decide whether partisan advantage alone would have been enough to justify minor
11 population deviations.” Id. at 1351.12 Thus, even Larios does not support Plaintiffs’
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 claim, which is based only on allegations that partisan motivation resulted in minor
13 population deviations. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim fails.
14 II.
15
16
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM UNDER THE ARIZONA EQUAL POPULATION
GOAL ALSO FAILS.
If the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claim under the Federal Equal Protection Clause,
17 it also should dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim under the Arizona Equal Population Goal for two
18 reasons. First, the relevant state constitutional provision mirrors federal law. Article 4,
19 part 2, section 1(14)(B) of the Arizona Constitution provides in relevant part that “state
20 legislative districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable.” The Arizona
21 Supreme Court has held that “[t]h[is] goal[], which require[s] compliance with the
22 Federal Constitution . . . , [is] only as flexible as the federal requirement[] permit[s], and
23 compliance with th[is] goal[] can be decided by a court as a matter of law.” Ariz.
24 Minority Coal., 220 Ariz. at 597 ¶ 32, 208 P.3d at 686 (citing League of Latin Am.
25 Citizens, 548 U.S. at 425; Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 561). Second, and alternatively, if the
26
27
12
Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, recognized that “in
addressing political motivation as a justification for an equal-population violation, . . .
28 Larios does not give clear guidance.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548
U.S. 399, 422-23 (2006) (plurality).
FINAL
14
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 15 of 18
1 Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Federal Equal Protection Clause claim, it also should decline
2 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). See Cecere,
3 274 F. Supp. 2d at 319; see also Ariz. Minority Coal. v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting
4 Comm’n., 366 F. Supp. 2d 887, 889 (D. Ariz. 2005) (dismissing state claims after finding
5 federal claims had no merit).
6 III.
7
THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER RULE 8 BECAUSE
IT CONTAINS IRRELEVANT, IMPROPER ALLEGATIONS AND FAILS
TO PERFORM THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF A COMPLAINT.
8
If the Complaint is not dismissed for failure to state a claim, it should be dismissed
9 under Rule 8 because the Complaint as written “indulge[s] in general disparagement of
10 other parties” and “fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” Donahoe v.
11 Arpaio, No. 2:10-cv-2756-NVW, 2011 WL 5119008, at *2, *3 (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 2011)
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 (quoting McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996)).
13
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
14 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be
15 simple, concise, and direct.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
“A complaint that is
16 ‘argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy . . . [and] consists largely of immaterial
17 background information’ is subject to dismissal.” Donahoe, 2011 WL 5119008, at *2
18 (quoting McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177). Plaintiffs’ 35-page complaint does not meet the
19 standards for pleading described above and contains long sections that are irrelevant,
20 inflammatory, or included for an improper purpose. Both counts in the Complaint relate
21 to alleged improper population deviations among districts. However, the Complaint
22 contains allegations that in no way relate to this issue and are replete with immaterial,
23 impertinent, and scandalous matters.13
24
The disparaging and immaterial allegations include those that allege: (1) the Chair
25 omitted facts from her application regarding political contributions (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 17-18,
26 20-21, 25); (2) the Chair’s spouse was present at public Commission meetings and on
27
28
13
In addition, the Court may strike “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
FINAL
15
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 16 of 18
1 phone calls and discussed the drawing of the legislative map (id. ¶¶ 24, 26-27); (3) the
2 Commission’s work was late and wasted public money (id. ¶ 1); (4) the Chair is
3 ineligible under the Arizona Constitution (id. ¶ 17); (5) the State’s open meeting law was
4 violated (id. ¶¶ 22, 34, 40, 42, 45-64); (6) the Commission improperly selected two
5 commissioners to alternate as vice-chair (id. ¶¶ 28-29); (7) the Commission did not hire
6 the Republican legal counsel favored by the Republican Commissioners (id. ¶¶ 31-38);
7 (8) various improprieties regarding the selection of the mapping consultant in June 2011
8 (id. ¶¶ 39-44, 45); (9) the procurement process for the Commission’s legal counsel and
9 mapping consultant was flawed (id. ¶¶ 33, 50); (10) the process of adopting the
10 congressional map was flawed (id. ¶¶ 1, 72-74, 78, 83-84); and (11) advertising the draft
11 map without completing a racial block voting analysis was “fraudulent” (id. ¶ 89). These
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12 allegations have nothing to do with the Federal Equal Protection claim or Arizona Equal
13 Population claim.
14
Plaintiffs’ allegations of retrogression (id. ¶¶ 118-120) are legally deficient
15 because they ignore the “functional analysis of electoral behavior” that is necessary to
16 determine whether minority voters have the ability to elect their candidates of choice.
17 See Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 76
18 Fed. Reg. 7470, 7471 (Feb. 9, 2011). More importantly, the allegations are irrelevant
19 because the districts have been precleared and, although the districts may be challenged
20 for other reasons, they cannot be challenged based on allegations of retrogression, which
21 is solely relevant to Section 5. 28 C.F.R. § 51.49. 51.54(b).
22
Plaintiffs also omit information from the extensive public record and include
23 allegations that a responsible review of the public record reveals are blatantly misleading
24 or simply wrong. As described above, the allegations concerning the Voting Rights Act
25 and Paragraph 117 are just a few examples of this. There are more. The allegations
26 about the failure to consider the Legislature’s comments (Compl. ¶¶ 99-104) are both
27 irrelevant and wrong.14 Plaintiffs’ statement in Paragraph 105 that Marana was moved to
28
14
The Complaint mentions the discussion of the Legislature’s comments at the
(continued...)
FINAL
16
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 17 of 18
1 District 3 is wrong, and this is evident from the “Components Report” on the
2 Commission’s website that is attached as Exhibit 12. And, the record reflects that the
3 location of Senator Cajero Bedford’s house was not identified or considered. (Ex. 13,
4 Howard Fischer, “Some upset with Redistricting Panel’s new Legislative Lines,” Capitol
5 Media Services (Dec. 21, 2011); Ex. 6, 12/20/10 Tr. at 96:19-99:3; Ex. 14, 1/10/12 Tr. at
6 58:23-80:9.)
7
Plaintiffs’ allegations reflect a “‘throw spaghetti at the wall and hope something
8 sticks’ approach.” Givs v. City of Eunice, 512 F. Supp. 2d 522, 542 (W.D. La. 2007).
9 They merely regurgitate non-cognizable partisan critiques of the Commission’s work that
10 have nothing to do with the legislative map. If the Complaint is not dismissed for failure
11 to state a claim, it must be dismissed under Rule 8 because it is flawed.
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12
CONCLUSION
13
As Justice Scalia aptly observed, challenges to legislative maps with deviations
14 under 10% based on “impermissible political bias” are “more likely to encourage
15 politically motivated litigation than to vindicate political rights.” Cox, 542 U.S. at 95116 52 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original). The Complaint alleges nothing more
17 than political bias based on speculation and alleged conspiracies. For the foregoing
18 reasons, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the Complaint.
19
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23rd day of May, 2012.
20
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
21
By: /s/ Joseph A. Kanefield
Joseph A. Kanefield (015838)
Brunn W. Roysden III (028698)
22
23
Mary R. O’Grady (011434)
Jeffrey B. Molinar (018512)
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
Attorneys for the Arizona Independent Redistricting
Commission and Commissioners Mathis, McNulty, Herrera,
Freeman, and Stertz solely in their official capacities
24
25
26
27
________________________
(...continued)
November 29, 2011 meeting (Ex. 4, 11/29/11 Agenda and Tr. at 144:18-152:21), but
28 omits the discussion October 30, 2011 (Ex. 5, 11/30/11 Agenda and Tr. at 6:4-8) and the
lengthy presentations December 7 (Ex. 11, 12/7/11 Agenda and Tr. at 4:5, 31:6.)
FINAL
17
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23 Filed 05/23/12 Page 18 of 18
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
I hereby certify that on May 23, 2012, I electronically transmitted the attached
3
4
5
document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a
Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants on record.
/s/Rosalin Sanhadja
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ballard Spahr LLP
1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
Telephone: 602.798.5400
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FINAL
18
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 164
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 164
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SUBMISSION
UNDER SECTION 5 OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT
STATE OF ARIZONA
LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING PLAN
Submitted By
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
February 28, 2012
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 3 of 164
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
II.
EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION ......................................................................................3
III.
INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 28 C.F.R. § 51.27 ........................................................5
A.
51.27(a) Copy of Enactment ....................................................................................5
B.
51.27(b) Copy of Benchmark Enactment ................................................................5
C.
51.27(c) Explanation of Change ..............................................................................5
1.
Demographic Data for Proposed Districts and Benchmark
Districts ........................................................................................................6
2.
Maps of Benchmark Legislative Districts..................................................13
3.
Descriptions of Benchmark Legislative Districts ......................................17
4.
Maps of Proposed Legislative Districts .....................................................33
5.
Descriptions of Proposed Legislative Districts..........................................37
D.
51.27(d) Person Making the Submission...............................................................54
E.
51.27(e) Submitting Authority...............................................................................54
F.
51.27(f) County and State of Submitting Authority ..............................................54
G.
51.27(g) Party Responsible for Making Change....................................................55
H.
51.27(h) Authority for Change and Description of Procedures .............................55
1.
Arizona’s Constitution Authorizes the Commission to Adopt
the State’s New ..........................................................................................55
2.
The Commission Followed Procedural and Substantive
Requirements Established by the Arizona Constitution ............................56
3.
The Commission Focused on Compliance with the Voting
Rights Act Throughout ..............................................................................58
a.
Public Hearings, Business Meetings, and Written Input
Provided Opportunities for Public Participation............................59
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 4 of 164
b.
The Commission Established Ten Districts in which
Minorities Will Have the Ability to Elect Candidates of
their Choice....................................................................................62
c.
Adoption of the Grid Map through Adoption of the
Draft Map.......................................................................................63
d.
Adjustment of the Draft Map through Adoption of the
Final Map .......................................................................................67
4.
The Commission Considered Other State Constitutional Criteria.............72
5.
The Commission Opposed Efforts That Would Undermine the
Independent Redistricting Process.............................................................74
I.
51.27(i) Date of Adoption......................................................................................75
J.
51.27(j) Effective Date...........................................................................................75
K.
51.27(k) Enforcement of Change...........................................................................75
L.
51.27(l) Scope of Change ......................................................................................75
M.
51.27(m) Reasons for Change................................................................................75
N.
51.27(n) Anticipated Effect on Members of Racial or Language
Minority Groups.....................................................................................................76
1.
The Commission’s Proposed Legislative Plan Enhances the
Ability of Minority Voters in Arizona to Elect Candidates of
Their Choice...............................................................................................76
2.
The Proposed Redistricting Plan Maintains a District in Which
Native American Voters Have the Ability to Elect the Candidate
of Their Choice ..........................................................................................78
3.
The Proposed Legislative Plan Increases from Six to Nine the
Number of Majority-Minority Districts in which Hispanics are
the Dominant Minority Group and in which Minority Voters
Will Have the Ability to Elect their Candidates of Choice........................83
4.
The Proposed Plan Includes Three Districts in Southern Arizona
in Which Minority Voters Will Have the Ability to Elect their
Candidates of Choice .................................................................................84
3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 5 of 164
5.
6.
a.
Proposed LD 3 Maintains Minority Voters’ Ability to
Elect Candidates of Their Choice That Existed in
Benchmark LD 27..........................................................................87
b.
Proposed LD 2 Preserves Minority Voters’ Ability to
Elect Candidates of Choice in a Second Majority-HVAP
District in the Proposed Plan..........................................................90
c.
Proposed LD 4 Increases the Ability of Minority Voters
to Elect Candidates of Choice in Southeastern Arizona ................97
d.
The Proposed Plan Establishes Three Majority Voting
Age Hispanic Districts that Provide Minority Voters the
Ability to Elect their Candidates of Choice in Southern
Arizona.........................................................................................101
The Commission’s Proposed Plan Increases the Number of
Majority-Minority Districts in Maricopa County in which
Minority Voters Can Elect Their Candidates of Choice from
Four to Six................................................................................................101
a.
The Proposed Plan Maintains Two Majority-Minority
Districts in South Phoenix that Provide Minority Voters
the Ability to Elect Their Candidates of Choice..........................104
b.
The Proposed Plan Increases from Two to Three the
Districts in which Minority Voters Have the Ability to
Elect Candidates of Their Choice in Central and West
Phoenix ........................................................................................110
c.
Proposed LD 26 Provides Minority Voters the Ability to
Elect Candidates of Their Choice in the Eastern Part of
Maricopa County .........................................................................117
d.
The Proposed Plan Provides Minority Voters the Ability
to Elect Candidates of their Choice in Six Proposed
Districts in Maricopa County.......................................................120
Although Proposed LD 8 is an Improvement Over Benchmark
LD 23, Neither District Ensures Minority Voters the Ability to
Elect Their Candidates of Choice ............................................................121
4
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 6 of 164
7.
O.
IV.
The Proposed Plan Surpasses the Benchmark by Improving the
Ability of Minority Voters to Elect Candidates of Their Choice
Statewide in Ten Legislative Districts .....................................................126
51.27(o) Past or Pending Litigation .....................................................................133
1.
Litigation Involving Prior Legislative Redistricting Maps ......................133
2.
Prior Litigation Involving Current Commission......................................135
3.
Pending Litigation....................................................................................135
P.
51.27(p) Preclearance of Prior Practice ...............................................................137
Q.
51.27(q) Redistricting Requirements ...................................................................137
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 28 C.F.R. § 51.28 ....................137
A.
51.28(a) Demographic Information .....................................................................137
1.
Total and Voting Age Population ............................................................137
2.
Registered Voters.....................................................................................137
3.
Estimates of Population Used ..................................................................138
4.
Demographic Data on Magnetic Media...................................................138
B.
51.28(b) Maps ......................................................................................................138
C.
51.28(c) Annexations...........................................................................................138
D.
51.28(d) Election Returns ....................................................................................139
E.
51.28(e) Language Use ........................................................................................139
F.
51.28(f) Publicity and Participation.....................................................................139
G.
51.28(g) Availability of Submission....................................................................142
H.
51.28(h) Minority Group Contacts ......................................................................143
I.
Request Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 51.36 ................................................................143
J.
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................143
5
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 7 of 164
I.
INTRODUCTION
The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (“Commission”), a politically
balanced commission of five citizen volunteers established by the Arizona Constitution,
respectfully requests that the Department of Justice (the “Department” or “DOJ”) preclear,
pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Arizona’s Legislative Redistricting Plan (the
“Proposed Legislative Plan” or “Proposed Plan”).
The purpose of this submission (the
“Submission” or the “Legislative Submission”) is to describe the Proposed Plan and to
demonstrate that it is not retrogressive and has neither a discriminatory purpose nor
discriminatory effect.
Throughout the redistricting process, the Commission recognized that compliance with
the Voting Rights Act is paramount and made it the top priority in constructing new legislative
districts for the State of Arizona. The Commission emphasized voting rights issues – through
outreach and education – and analyzed electoral performance in constructing the Proposed Plan.
The Commission also complied with a complex set of State constitutional criteria that include:
establishing districts of equal population; considering compactness and contiguity; respecting
communities of interest; using visible geographic features, city, town and county boundaries, and
undivided census tracts; and creating competitive districts.
The Commission’s Proposed Plan creates ten proposed districts (each a “Proposed LD”
or “Proposed District”) in which minority voters would have the ability to elect candidates of
their choice, and maintains and strengthens the ability of minorities to elect their candidates of
choice as compared to the existing legislative districts (“Benchmark LDs” or “Benchmark
Districts”).
The Commission employed a “functional analysis of electoral behavior” to determine the
number of proposed legislative districts in which minority voters would have the ability to elect
their candidates of choice. See Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act, 76 Fed. Reg. 7470, 7471 (Feb. 9, 2011). The Commission retained a highly
regarded, independent expert, Dr. Gary King from the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at
Harvard University, to conduct this analysis. Dr. King found no evidence of retrogression and
confirmed that minority voters would have the ability to elect in ten districts, Proposed LDs 2, 3,
1
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 8 of 164
4, 7, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30, as determined by a statewide election analysis. Dr. King’s
analysis of statewide elections from 2004 through 2010 shows that statewide candidates who
were minority candidates of choice performed better in these ten Proposed Districts than in the
ten strongest Benchmark Districts (Benchmark LDs 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 29).
Indeed, Dr. King’s analysis establishes that only seven of the Benchmark Districts provided
minority voters the ability to elect candidates of their choice, compared to ten in the Proposed
Plan. An eleventh Proposed District, Proposed LD 8, also outperforms one of the top ten
Benchmark Districts, Benchmark LD 23.
The Commission also considered extensive demographic information in creating the
Proposed Plan. Compared to the Benchmark Districts, the Proposed Plan increases the number
of districts with a majority Hispanic voting age population (“HVAP”) from four (Benchmark
LDs 13, 14, 16, and 24) to seven (Proposed LDs 2, 3, 4, 19, 27, 29, and 30). The Proposed Plan
maintains the same number of districts in which the majority of the total voting age population
(“VAP”) are minorities; both have eight such districts. (Compare Benchmark LDs 2, 13, 14, 15,
16, 24, 27, and 29, with Proposed LDs 2, 3, 4, 7, 19, 27, 29, and 30).1 The Proposed Plan
maintains eleven majority-minority districts. (Compare Benchmark LDs 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
18, 24, 25, 27, and 29, with Proposed LDs 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30). Finally, the
Commission compared the performance of Proposed LD 8 in Pinal County to Benchmark LD 23,
which is also in Pinal County and has a total minority population just under 50%. Proposed LD
8 performs as well or better in reconfigured election analysis in four of the five statewide
elections measured and in the legislative elections analyzed.
Although the Commission was created as a constitutional body independent of Arizona’s
political structure, elected officials threatened to undermine the Commission while it attempted
to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. Notwithstanding these significant challenges, the
Commission carried on with its work. After more than 100 public hearings, the Commission
adopted the Proposed Plan that is the subject of this submission.
As part of its process, the Commission went to great lengths to reach out to minority
communities throughout the State. It frequently traveled to Native American reservations and
1
Benchmark LD 25 has a minority VAP of 49.71%.
2
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 9 of 164
other areas with high minority populations for public hearings. It viewed public hearings as an
opportunity to educate Arizonans on the State’s responsibilities under the Voting Rights Act.
The Commission created a short video on the Voting Rights Act, which was shown at many
public hearings and available on its website. As a result of these efforts, the Commission
received a great deal of input from minority communities. Hispanic leaders presented plans and
recommendations to the Commission that were incorporated into the Proposed Legislative Plan,
including, for example, a plan by the Arizona Minority Coalition for three majority-minority
districts in Maricopa County – which the Commission considered when creating six majorityminority in Maricopa County. The Proposed Plan also incorporates proposals from Native
American leaders into Proposed LD 7, a majority-Native American district. As explained in this
submission, the Commission’s results and process fully comply with the Voting Rights Act.
To facilitate the Department’s review, the information in this submission is set forth as
prescribed by 28 C.F.R. § 51.27 and § 51.28. This Legislative Submission is accompanied by an
Index of Legislative Exhibits, an Index of Legislative Maps, paper copies of the Legislative
Exhibits, and a flash drive containing all of the exhibits to this submission in electronic format.
In addition, the submission is supported by a Separate Appendix, which contains additional
materials relevant to Arizona’s redistricting process. The Separate Appendix was provided on a
flash drive as part of Arizona’s Congressional Submission, DOJ Submission Number 2012-0650,
and is incorporated herein by reference. An index of the materials included in the Separate
Appendix also accompanies this submission.
II.
EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 51.34, the Commission respectfully requests expedited
consideration of this submission because of Arizona’s timing requirements for the 2012
elections. Candidates, election officials, and voters need to know what the new legislative
districts are going to be as soon as possible.
State legislative candidates must file their
nomination papers and petitions between April 30, 2012 and May 30, 2012. A.R.S. §§ 16311(A), 16-314(A). Until preclearance of the Proposed Legislative Plan, candidates and election
officials will not be able to properly identify the districts in which candidates seek election. Not
knowing the district lines also affects the funding of campaigns because candidates hoping to
3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 10 of 164
Map 4: Proposed Legislative Districts
34
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 11 of 164
Map 5: Proposed Legislative Districts, Maricopa County
35
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 12 of 164
Map 6: Proposed Legislative Districts, Greater Tucson Metropolitan Area, Pima County
36
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 13 of 164
N.
51.27(n) Anticipated Effect on Members of Racial or Language Minority
Groups
1.
The Commission’s Proposed Legislative Plan Enhances the Ability of
Minority Voters in Arizona to Elect Candidates of Their Choice.
The Commission’s Proposed Plan creates more legislative districts in which minority
voters, particularly Hispanic voters, will have the ability to elect their candidates of choice than
are present in the Benchmark Plan.
In constructing the Proposed Legislative Plan, the
Commission focused both on census data and electoral performance in order to maintain and
improve minority voting strength. As a result, the Proposed Plan is not retrogressive, and it
significantly improves the electoral performance of minority candidates of choice compared to
the Benchmark Plan.
Based on 2010 census data, Arizona currently has eleven districts in which minorities
represent a majority of total population—Benchmark LDs 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24, 25, 27,
29. Of these eleven Benchmark Districts, only seven provided minority voters the ability to elect
candidates of their choice (Benchmark LDs 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 29), one of which was the
single district in which voting age Native Americans were a majority – Benchmark LD 2. Two
majority-minority districts (Benchmark LDs 12 and 18) never supported the minority
community’s candidate of choice in a legislative or statewide election, and in two others
(Benchmark Districts 24 and 25), the minority voters’ candidates of choice had limited success
in legislative races and never prevailed in a statewide election within the district.
In the
Benchmark Plan, only four of the majority-minority districts had a majority Hispanic voting age
population (“HVAP”)—Benchmark LDs 13, 14, 16, 24.
The Proposed Legislative Plan maintains eleven majority-minority districts – Proposed
LDs 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, and increases the number of majority-minority districts
in which minority voters will be able to elect their candidate of choice. Analysis shows that
under the Proposed Plan, the minority candidate of choice would prevail in a majority of the
elections tested in ten of these districts – Proposed LDs 2, 3, 4, 7, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 30, thus
increasing the number of majority-minority districts in which minority voters have the ability to
elect the candidate of their choice from seven to ten. This improved performance benefits
Hispanic voters who have the ability to elect candidates of their choice in nine districts under the
76
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 14 of 164
Proposed Plan (Proposed LDs 2, 3, 4, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 30) compared to only six districts in
the Benchmark Plan (Benchmark LDs 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 29).
The Proposed Plan also increases the number of majority-HVAP districts from four in the
Benchmark Plan to seven (Proposed LDs 2, 3, 4, 19, 27, 29, 30) and maintains a majority Native
American voting age district (Proposed District 7). Further, the Proposed Plan also includes
three additional majority-minority districts in which Hispanics are the largest minority group
(Proposed LDs 8, 24, and 26), two of which would provide minority voters the ability to elect the
candidates of their choice (Proposed LDs 24 and 26).
The Commission’s analysis of districts that offered minority voters the ability to elect
candidates of choice included an analysis of Benchmark District 23, which was a critical part of
the Department of Justice’s Section 5 analysis last decade. Since preclearance of the Benchmark
Districts in 2004, however, this District, which had previously been predominantly rural,
experienced unprecedented suburban
growth, ending the decade 157,412 (73.88%)
overpopulated when compared to the ideal population for a legislative district.
(Table 3;
Exhibit 3-A.) Minority candidates did not consistently prevail in legislative races, and the
minority voters’ candidate of choice never prevailed in a statewide race in Benchmark LD 23.
(Exhibit 6-B (Dr. Gary King’s Report on Legislative Redistricting Plan (“King Report”)) at 1718; Exhibit 6-C (Dr. Gary King’s Supplemental Report on Candidates of Choice (“King
Supplemental Report”)) at 8, App. (A)(8) Tables 46-29.) The Proposed Plan strengthens the
minority voting strength in the comparable district, Proposed LD 8, raising the total minority
population from 48% total minority under the Benchmark Plan (Table 3) to 50% total minority
population in the Proposed Plan (Table 1), and increasing the minority voting age population
from 43.5% in the Benchmark Plan (Table 4) to 46.6% in the Proposed Plan (Table 2). The
electoral performance of the minority candidate of choice also improves under the Proposed
Plan, but not enough to ensure that the minority candidate of choice to prevail. (Exhibits 6-B at
21 and 19.) Although the Commission’s Proposed LD 8 improves Benchmark 23, neither the
Benchmark District nor the Proposed District appears to have sufficient voting strength to ensure
that minority voters will consistently have the ability to elect their candidate of choice. (Id.)
Overall, therefore, the Proposed Plan creates ten majority-minority districts in which
minority voters will have the ability to elect their candidate of choice. Although the Benchmark
77
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 15 of 164
Plan had a comparable number of majority-minority districts, only seven of those Benchmark
Districts provided minority voters with the ability to elect their candidates of choice.
Because the Commission developed its Legislative maps from a grid map, as opposed to
the Benchmark Districts, the Proposed District numbers do not correspond to those of the
Benchmark Districts. A more detailed description of the Proposed and Benchmark Districts in
which minority voters have the ability to elect their candidates of choice and the comparisons
between them is included below and is organized by geographical region for purposes of
convenience.
2.
The Proposed Redistricting Plan Maintains a District in Which Native
American Voters Have the Ability to Elect the Candidate of Their
Choice.
Both the Benchmark Plan and the Proposed Legislative Plan include a majority voting
age Native American district in which Native American voters will have the ability to elect the
candidate of their choice. In the Benchmark Plan, this is Benchmark LD 2, and in the Proposed
Plan, it is Proposed LD 7. Benchmark LD 2 had a Native American population of 113,335
(63.7%) (Table 3) and a Native American voting age population of 75,373 (59.6%) (Table 4).
In Proposed LD 7, both of these figures are increased by multiple percentage points. Proposed
LD 7 has a Native American population of 135,744 (66.9%) (Table 1) and a Native American
voting age population of 88,758 (63.7%) (Table 2).
Table 65 below summarizes the
demographic information for Proposed LD 7 and Benchmark LD 2.
Table 65: Population Summary of Benchmark LD 2 and Proposed LD 7 using 2010 Census
Data10
Population
Deviation from Ideal Population
Minority Population
Minority Voting Age Population
Native American Population
Native American Voting Age
10
Benchmark LD 2
177,904
-35,163
132,369 (74.4%)
88,063 (69.6%)
113,335 (63.7%)
75,373 (59.6%)
Exhibits 2-A and 3-A.
78
Proposed LD 7
203,026
-10,041
152,653 (75.2%)
99,246 (71.3%)
135,744 (66.9%)
88,758 (63.7%)
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 16 of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 17 of 164
EXHIBIT 2
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 18 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
October 10, 2011
9:56 a.m.
Location
Four Points by Sheraton Tucson University Plaza
1900 East Speedway Boulevard
Tucson, Arizona 85719
Attending
Colleen C. Mathis, Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Scott Day Freeman, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Richard P. Stertz, Commissioner
Raymond F. Bladine, Executive Director
Buck Forst, Information Technology Specialist
Mary O'Grady, Counsel, Osborn Maledon
Joe Kanefield, Counsel, Ballard Spahr
PREPARED BY:
AZ Litigation Support, LLC
Michelle D. Elam, CR
Certified Reporter
CR No. 50637
©
AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 19 of 209
164
1
Act, we would probably be treating everyone equal.
2
But there's no way around it.
3
appears that we're treating someone or a particular
4
group with a little more attention than others, it's
5
because of that.
So that's why if it
6
That's all I have to say about that.
7
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
8
COMMISSIONER MCNULTY:
9
10
Any other comments?
Madame Chair,
would you entertain a motion to approve the draft
map?
11
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
12
COMMISSIONER MCNULTY:
I would.
I would move that
13
we adopt this as our draft legislative map and that
14
we instruct our staff to advertise it to the public
15
and take comment for at least the next 30 days.
16
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Is there a second?
17
VICE CHAIR HERRERA:
I guess I'll make
18
it.
I thought Commissioner Freeman would, but I'll
19
go ahead and make the second.
20
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
21
All in favor?
22
VICE CHAIR FREEMAN:
Aye.
23
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Aye.
24
VICE CHAIR HERRERA:
Aye.
25
COMMISSIONER MCNULTY:
©
Any discussion?
Aye.
AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 20 of 210
164
1
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
2
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
3
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Any opposed?
No.
So for the record
4
there were four ayes and one no from Commissioner
5
Stertz.
6
So we have a draft legislative map and
7
there is no question that we'll be entertaining a
8
lot of comment over the next 30 days on this and
9
listening to people and being as responsive as we
10
can to balance the six competing criteria and
11
ensuring that we are meeting all of those and
12
addressing all of them for each of the districts.
13
VICE CHAIR FREEMAN:
Madame Chair.
14
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Freeman.
15
VICE CHAIR FREEMAN:
If I could just
16
explain my vote a little bit.
17
Again, the Commission has done a lot of
18
work to pencil out to draft map and we are going to
19
go forward with public comment hearings beginning
20
tomorrow night.
21
Those have been set.
Under those circumstances, I think we
22
need to have two maps, obviously, federal and state
23
legislative to go forward.
24
25
And if we're going to go forward with the
legislative map as the advertised draft map, then
©
AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 21 of 231
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I, MICHELLE D. ELAM, Certified Reporter
10
No. 50637 for the State of Arizona, do hereby
11
certify that the foregoing 230 printed pages
12
constitute a full, true, and accurate transcript of
13
the proceedings had in the foregoing matter, all
14
done to the best of my skill and ability.
15
16
17
WITNESS my hand this 25th day of October,
2011.
18
19
20
21
_________________________
MICHELLE D. ELAM
Certified Reporter
Certificate No. 50637
22
23
24
25
©
AZ LITIGATION SUPPORT COURT REPORTERS
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 22 of 164
EXHIBIT 3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 23 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Monday, December 5, 2011
1:10 p.m.
Location
Fiesta Resort – Fiesta Ballroom
2100 South Priest Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282
Attending
Colleen C. Mathis, Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Scott Day Freeman, Vice Chair
Richard P. Stertz, Commissioner
Ray Bladine, Executive Director
Buck Forst, Information Technology Specialist
Kristina Gomez, Deputy Executive Director
Mary O'Grady, Legal Counsel
Joe Kanefield, Legal Counsel
Reported By:
Marty Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter #50162
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 154
24 of 164
1
Discussion -- number three, discussion and
2
possible direction to mapping consultant regarding
3
adjustments to draft legislative districts.
4
And I think we gave our mapping consultants some
5
guidance on this on Thursday, and they have complied and
6
have some things to show us.
7
WILLIE DESMOND:
Yes, I think there are
8
six possible changes to the legislative draft map prepared
9
for today.
10
11
The first one is a change reflecting
Cochise County and Green Valley.
12
And there is changes to the Schultz flood area.
13
And I will go into it later further, but there's two
14
possible changes to the Schultz flood area, one that is
15
a narrow change and one that's more of a wide-reaching
16
change.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We also have a possible change to swap Show Low
for Winslow between District 6 and 7.
And in changes to improve competitiveness of 8 and
11, Pinal County.
And then the Susan Gerard map that she had
submitted also.
I think to start with the Cochise and Green Valley
one, if that works.
And I know we've discussed this and used this as
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 155
25 of 164
1
an example of the possible change report, but attached is
2
the actual change report for you to consider.
3
Basically the change is to keep Cochise County
4
whole within District 1.
5
green that goes to Bisbee and Douglas would be removed from
6
that district.
7
That arm that you can see that is
This would make District 1 overpopulated and
8
District 2 underpopulated.
9
Green Valley would then be included in District 2, taken
10
In order to fix that,
from District 1.
11
This would allow us to keep the I-19 corridor
12
together and improve the compactness of both districts.
13
However it does have adverse effects to the voting rights
14
status of District 2.
15
I know this was discussed briefly on Friday.
Ken
16
and Bruce and the legal team agreed to look at this more
17
closely over the weekend and to come back with some further
18
suggestions.
19
20
21
So that with, I'll turn it over to them.
KENNETH STRASMA:
Thank you.
So we, we wanted to
make sure that this change would not be retrogressive.
In terms ability to elect, although the Hispanic
22
percent does go down significantly, if you look at the
23
change report, the total Hispanic population is reduced
24
7 percent, from 66 percent to 59 percent.
25
And there's similar changes on Hispanic citizen
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 156
26 of 164
1
2
3
voting age population and Hispanic share of registration.
The district does, however, maintain its ability
to elect by every measure we've looked at.
4
One of the things we talked about last week is
5
that we looked at past elections in addition to the mine
6
inspector race.
7
8
9
Mine inspector performance in 2010 was at
62 percent for the Hispanic candidate.
With this change, it drops to 56.8 percent.
10
So lower, but still fairly high.
11
Puts it in the midrange of the other voting rights
12
13
14
15
districts.
We also looked at president '08, secretary of
state '06, and president '04.
In none of those races does the district drop
16
below 54 percent for the Democratic candidate, and in each
17
one of those districts the homogeneous precinct analysis
18
indicates that the Democratic candidate was the Hispanic
19
candidate of choice.
20
One additional election that we've added since
21
last week was -- at Mr. Adelson's request was 2004
22
Proposition 200.
23
24
25
There the no vote was the, so to speak, the
candidate of choice of Hispanic community.
And the -- so the yes vote is -- goes up slightly
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 157
27 of 164
1
from 44 percent to 46.7 percent, but still showing as the
2
ability for the district -- reconfigured district's ability
3
to elect candidate of choice under that measure.
4
One concern that Mr. Adelson raised, which is why
5
I believe he still wants to look at this some more, is that
6
this had been the highest district in term of percent
7
Hispanic voter registration and Hispanic citizen voting age
8
population.
9
So while it does not lose the ability to elect
10
candidate of choice, it does remove what had been our
11
highest district, and moves the district somewhere towards
12
the middle of the pack.
13
It is however, significantly higher than former
14
LDs 29 or 25, the two voting rights districts from which it
15
received some population.
16
17
And as I said before, under all the measures we
looked at maintains a healthy ability to elect.
18
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
19
Any questions for Mr. Strasma?
20
(No oral response.)
21
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you for that
analysis.
Do commissioners have any thoughts on this
particular change, just comments, or. . .
(No oral response.)
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 158
28 of 164
1
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
2
So thanks for checking that out for us.
3
I'm sure we'll be talking about that more in the
4
Okay.
I don't hear any.
future.
5
Do you want to go to the next one, Willie?
6
WILLIE DESMOND:
7
So the next one is the Schultz flood area.
8
And I'll kind of explain why there's two of them
9
10
Yes.
with this.
I received a file that outlined the area that was
11
affected by the Schultz flood from the Coconino County
12
government.
13
14
Looking at it, it's kind of -- it's clear where it
is, where they're hoping to grow to.
15
Let me find the old district.
16
Okay.
17
So the old district was just kind of looped around
18
19
right here.
What I did here is I expanded this area in order
20
to only grab census blocks that were wholly contained within
21
the affected area.
22
When you turn on the census blocks, you can see
23
that the blocks that surround this area are very large, and
24
so they go much past the affected area.
25
The reason I was hesitant to go ahead and accept
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 209
29 of 164
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
2
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
)
)
)
ss.
3
4
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceeding was
5
taken before me, Marty Herder, a Certified Court Reporter,
6
CCR No. 50162, State of Arizona; that the foregoing
7
208 pages constitute a true and accurate transcript of all
8
proceedings had upon the taking of said meeting, all done to
9
the best of my skill and ability.
10
11
DATED at Chandler, Arizona, this 11th day of
December, 2011.
12
13
__________________________
14
C. Martin Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter
Certificate No. 50162
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 30 of 164
EXHIBIT 4
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 31 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Scott Day Freeman, Vice Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Richard P. Stertz, Commissioner
Colleen Coyle Mathis, Chair
Notice is hereby given to the members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
and to the general public that the Commission will hold a meeting open to the public at the
time and location listed below for the purpose of hearing Citizen Comments and discussing
and acting on the items listed below:
Location:
Fiesta Resort – Fiesta Ballroom
2100 S. Priest Dr.
Tempe, AZ 85282
Date:
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Time:
1:30 P.M.
The Commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public,
for any item listed on the agenda, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice (A.R.S. §38431.03 (A) (3)and (4)). One or more of the members may participate via telephone or video
conferencing.
All matters on the agenda may be discussed, considered and are subject to action by the
Commission.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
I.
Call to Order.
II.
County election officials’ comments and discussion regarding redistricting
process and schedule issues. (Estimated Time 30 minutes)
III.
Discussion concerning process and schedule for adjusting draft maps to
develop final maps. (Estimated Time 45 minutes)
IV.
Discussion of voting rights analysis of draft congressional and legislative
districts and benchmark districts, presentation by Strategic Telemetry and
Legal Counsel. (Estimated Time 60 minutes)
1
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 32 of 164
V.
Overview of public input on draft maps, presentation by Strategic Telemetry.
(Estimated Time 45 minutes)
VI.
Consideration of input from the Legislature through memorial and minority
report. (Estimated Time 30 minutes)
VII.
Consideration of Governor’s Letters on Mapping Adjustments. (Estimated
Time 15 minutes)
VIII.
Discussion and possible direction to mapping consultant regarding
adjustments to draft Congressional districts. (Estimated Time 60 minutes)
IX.
Discussion and possible direction to mapping consultant regarding
adjustments to draft legislative districts. (Estimated Time 60 minutes)
X.
Legal advice, direction to counsel, discussion, possible action and update
regarding litigation on open meeting law. The Commission may vote to go
into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of
obtaining legal advice and providing direction to counsel (A.R.S. §38-431.03
(A) (3) and (4)). (Estimated Time 20 minutes)
XI.
Legal advice, discussion and possible action regarding litigation about the
removal of the chair. The Commission may vote to go into executive session,
which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice
and direction to counsel (A.R.S. 38-431.-3(A)(3) and (4)).
XII.
Call for Public Comment. This is the time for the public to comment on items
on the agenda or redistricting maps. Members of the Commission may not
discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore,
pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.01(H), action taken as a result of public comment
on matters not on the agenda will be limited to directing staff to study the
matter, responding to any criticism or scheduling the matter for further
consideration and decision at a later date. (Estimated Time 30 minutes).
XIII.
Adjournment.
A copy of the agenda provided to Commission members (with the exception of
material relating to possible executive sessions) is available for public inspection at
the Arizona Independent Commission’s office, 1100 W. Washington St. (The Evans
House) Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
Dated this 23rd day of November, 2011
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
2
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 33 of 164
Colleen Coyle Mathis,
Chairman, by:
Raymond F. Bladine, Executive Director
Any person with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation, such as sign language
interpreter, by contacting 602-542-5221. Requests should be made as early as possible to
allow time to arrange accommodations.
3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 34 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
1:35 p.m.
Location
Fiesta Resort – Fiesta Ballroom
2100 South Priest Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282
Attending
Colleen C. Mathis, Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Richard P. Stertz, Commissioner
Ray Bladine, Executive Director
Buck Forst, Information Technology Specialist
Kristina Gomez, Deputy Executive Director
Mary O'Grady, Legal Counsel
Joe Kanefield, Legal Counsel
Bruce Adelson, Legal Counsel
Reported By:
Marty Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter #50162
www.CourtReportersAz.com
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
93of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 35
1
some changes.
When those changes affect minority districts,
2
I'm sure that you're -- there will be more than the
3
three guidelines that I'm going to suggest, but I would
4
suggest one, a hippocratic oath version, first do no
5
harm, trying not to make the minority percent less in a
6
district.
7
There may be cases where we can determine that we
8
can without affecting ability to electric, but there's also
9
a caution flag, a yellow flag, that if we're making a
10
minority percent less in any district, we need to do
11
analysis to make sure that we have not made less the ability
12
to elect, which is the legal standard.
13
A second point is if -- to the extent possible if
14
we can choose to underpopulate minority districts, that is
15
acceptable as long as the population deviation overall is
16
within the acceptable range, and we talked about being well
17
within plus or minus five percent.
18
There's two reasons for this.
One, because that
19
population range is acceptable, that makes it more possible
20
to create effective minority districts.
21
the rapid growth in Hispanic population, it is likely that
22
underpopulation will be corrected for by population growth
23
before the decade is over.
24
probably by the time these lines are first used in the 2012
25
elections, districts that were underpopulated based on the
Also, because of
In fact, in some districts
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
94of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 36
1
2010 census will be ideally overpopulated.
2
The third of these pieces of advice is based on
3
what I mentioned about what we've been seeing about Texas,
4
voters that come from districts that were not previous
5
minority ability to elect districts.
6
equal, it's better to move population from districts that
7
had the ability to elect before.
8
necessarily guarantees that they have a greater ability, in
9
fact, ability to elect, but because it lessens the burden of
10
Other things being
Not because that
proof.
11
We just have to do a larger set of analysis to
12
prove the effectiveness of those voters if we're taking
13
voters from districts that did not have the ability to elect
14
before.
15
Obviously because of population growth, it's
16
impossible to create these ten minority districts without
17
taking some population from areas that were not previous
18
minority districts, but we have to keep in mind that we have
19
a greater burden of proof and level of analysis that we'll
20
have to do for those voters.
21
22
23
And that will be an ongoing process as we're
adjusting these maps.
And I know Mr. Adelson can provide much more
24
detail on the nitty-gritty of what DOJ is going to be
25
looking at and what we're going to have to provide in terms
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 105
37 of 164
1
In looking at -- in determining these districts,
2
we look to determine the -- whether or not minority voters
3
are able and have been able to elect their candidates of
4
choice.
5
In looking at the various districts in Arizona, my
6
belief is that there are ten districts, benchmark districts,
7
meaning precleared districts, where minority voters have
8
demonstrated the ability to elect.
9
Now, at this point what we need to do as far as
10
the submission is concerned is have analysis which is
11
proceeding to confirm that minority voters -- or I should
12
say minority legislators in these districts are, in fact,
13
the candidates of choice.
14
Once with that confirmation, then that -- we move
15
forward with other aspects of the, of the analysis.
But in
16
looking at the districts and looking at who the legislators
17
are and my sense of they're also looking at election returns
18
that there are ten benchmark districts.
19
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
20
continue that line of thought.
Madam Chair, if I can
21
We -- the two reports that we've received, one is
22
a draft, which was marked as a, as a, as an attorney-client
23
privileged draft document, dated the 10th of November, and
24
the one we received today, which has been contemplated for
25
potential release to the public for analysis, what are the,
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 144
38 of 164
1
the Catalyst website for them to use and research as they
2
begin the process of considering changes to these draft
3
maps.
4
With that, that closes the presentation.
5
And like I said, we will try to get this online as
6
soon as possible.
7
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Thank you, Mr. Desmond.
8
Any questions or comments from commissioners?
9
(No oral response.)
10
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
I would just give a shout out
11
to our amazing staff who made that all possible and got us
12
to 30 different locations around the state.
13
yeoman's effort to do, and they did a great job.
It was quite a
14
So thank you, staff.
15
And thanks to the commissioners and our
16
transcription services and legal counsel and mapping
17
consultants for all being there and staffing them.
18
Okay.
With that, our next item on the agenda is
19
number six, consideration of input from the Legislature
20
through memorial and minority report.
21
22
I'm not sure who was planning on presenting that
information.
23
I know we've received their report.
24
MARY O'GRADY:
25
Madam Chair, we put this on the
agenda just to highlight that the constitution does say that
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 145
39 of 164
1
during the 30-day comment period either or both bodies of
2
the legislature may act within that period to make
3
recommendations to the Commission by memorial or minority
4
report.
5
6
And those recommendations shall be considered by
the Independent Redistricting Commission.
7
8
And then we can, you know, establish the final
boundaries.
9
So we wanted to make sure, again, the Commission's
10
received all the public input, but we wanted to make sure
11
that we made record that the Commission has received the
12
memorial HCM2001 that was approved in the special session.
13
14
And with that was the report of the Arizona Joint
Legislative Redistricting Committee.
15
16
So those materials are available to the
Commissioners.
17
There also was a minority report that was
18
submitted to the Commission, which was in the form of a
19
letter.
20
the form of a letter, November 1, from the Arizona
21
legislature.
22
the senate and the house minority leader Chad Campbell and
23
David Schapira.
24
25
That should be within this packet.
And that was in
And it's signed by the minority leader from
So we received those documents from the
legislature.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 146
40 of 164
1
I don't know that it makes sense now to sort of
2
read through those, but maybe commit it to the Commission to
3
makes sure that you review those.
4
process proceeds, you may want to -- you can take those into
5
account as the work goes on.
6
And as the mapping
I did note -- I would note just one thing.
We had
7
some conversation about underpopulating.
8
at the equal population comment that the legislature made on
9
Page 2, it does note that the last redistricting commission
10
did underpopulate the minority rights districts as part of
11
their effort to meet their voting rights benchmark.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
And when you look
And I just mention that because that was something
that came up today.
And they do make comments on both legislative and
congressional maps, so you might want to consider that.
Now, there was some -- some of it are
constitutional issues in the legislature's memorial.
Again, as we've discussed, those are probably
19
issues for a court to decide.
20
the Commission is concerned about anything, they can
21
consider those as they propose recommended changes to the
22
draft map.
23
But certainly if
There was an allegation about improper
24
consideration of places of residence of incumbents.
25
looking through the report, that's based on speculation.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
But
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 147
41 of 164
1
And clearly our record included no consideration of
2
incumbent addresses.
3
So, that's the point that I wanted to make, and
4
just refer it to the Commission for their consideration as
5
the mapping process proceedings.
6
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
7
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
8
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
9
highlight though two points.
Mr. Stertz.
Ms. O'Grady, you chose to
Why?
10
MARY O'GRADY:
11
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
12
Madam Chair.
Maybe I shouldn't have.
I just --
These documents are pages
long and --
13
MARY O'GRADY:
Right.
14
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
-- they're filled with
15
incredible amounts of research, data, and presentation, and
16
testimony.
17
And you've highlighted two.
18
MARY O'GRADY:
Why?
Yeah, I just mention two because
19
one came up today, the point on underpopulating.
20
thought it connected to a prior discussion.
21
other things.
22
And so I
But there are
And the other, I just thought it was appropriate
23
to put in the record something that made it clear that that
24
was not something that was considered by the Commission in
25
terms of the incumbent residences.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 148
42 of 164
1
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
I mean, we have talked about
2
perspective communities of interest.
3
geography.
4
We have talked about other areas too.
MARY O'GRADY:
Sure.
And I just thought I would
5
highlight those.
6
whatever you feel highlighting --
But you certain can highlight, you know,
7
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
8
MARY O'GRADY:
9
We have talked
Madam Chair.
-- as part of the Commission
discussions.
10
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
I think as --
11
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
12
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
I think as Ms. O'Grady said,
13
we're free to read this information and take it into account
14
when we are making changes to the draft map.
15
was pretty clear.
16
17
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
So I think she
Well, I understand,
Mr. Herrera, but I keep getting back to --
18
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
19
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
20
slighting of the delivery of testimony --
21
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
22
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
I'm not done.
-- there seems to be a
I think --- and there's -- and this
23
was, the house, the house and the senate, the house went
24
through a lot of trouble to capture testimony to put this
25
memorial into place.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 149
43 of 164
1
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
2
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
And -And to, and to gloss over it
3
and just to highlight those two items, one, I'd rather have
4
chosen to not highlight them all or at least to go into
5
every single one of these in its full and completeness.
6
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
I don't think Mr. Stertz can
7
be happy with anything we do today, so I suspect that we
8
just -- I recommend that we just move forward and we -- his
9
comments are noted, but I. . .
10
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Okay.
I have a question.
11
says house concurrent memorial 2001.
12
previous Commission or is this the current?
13
14
MARY O'GRADY:
Commission.
15
16
17
18
Okay.
Is this from the
Madam Chair, that's for the current
It's just -- that's just a number.
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
year.
It
A number, okay.
It's not the
Good.
MARY O'GRADY:
The year is up in the left-hand
side, 2011.
19
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
20
Okay.
21
Any comments or questions on any of this material?
22
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
23
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
24
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
25
Got it.
Thank you.
Madam Chair.
Mr. Stertz.
May I ask legal counsel why
this, why this -- you said that it was a constitutional
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 150
44 of 164
1
opportunity for the legislature to do this.
2
to do it the previous Commission, and they chose to do it
3
now.
4
They chose not
Do you have any insight or -- into why they chose
5
to make this choice now or why they chose to assemble this
6
team now?
7
And also, are you -- is there a recordation of the
8
transcripts that are also available to the Commission to
9
read of the -- that go beyond the depth of this report?
10
MARY O'GRADY:
Commissioner Stertz, I'm not going
11
to speculate on why they did that.
12
I think the reports speaks for itself.
13
And, again, there's the minority report as well
14
that goes with it.
15
constitution as things that should be considered.
16
And they're both referenced in the
And in terms of the records of the Commission,
17
legislative hearings, those are in the legislative website
18
available for review.
19
know, you could certainly review those.
20
how that really does become part of the record of the
21
comments that have been submitted.
And that would be something that, you
22
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
23
JOSEPH KANEFIELD:
24
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
25
JOSEPH KANEFIELD:
And we've discussed
Madam Chair.
Madam Chair.
Mr. Kanefield.
Madam Chair, members of the
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 151
45 of 164
1
Commission, just to add to that point, the legislature
2
conducted several hearings over several days.
3
Ms. O'Grady just mentioned, those are available on their
4
website to be watched.
5
And those, as
They're web streamed, so they were -- you can
6
watch the testimony live, and jump to any part of the
7
testimony you wish to review.
8
So it's all available on the AZleg.gov.
9
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
10
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
11
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
The -- I think we -- every
12
citizen in Arizona, including the state legislators, were
13
encouraged to attend their meetings and voice their
14
concerns.
15
Most of them chose not to.
16
I recall seeing a very few Republican, probably
17
more Democratic legislators approach the Commission and talk
18
about their communities of interest, what's important to
19
them.
20
state to come forward and talk about what matters to them.
So I think that was a time for the leaders of the
21
22
23
24
25
And, again, my account, I saw very few at these
meetings.
I saw very few at the public hearings, both the
first round and second round.
So I think that's -- and we've given them -- we've
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 152
46 of 164
1
given ample opportunity to speak in front of the Commission.
2
And as I said, most chose not to.
3
4
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Any other comments or
questions on these?
5
(No oral response.)
6
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Okay.
Well, we'll be taking
7
all of them into consideration when we start to adjust the
8
draft maps.
9
10
The next item on the agenda is number seven,
consideration of governor's letters on mapping adjustments.
11
JOSEPH KANEFIELD:
Madam Chair, members of the
12
Commission, Governor Brewer wrote two letters to the
13
Commission expressing her views on the draft legislative and
14
congressional maps.
15
16
One letter, dated October 26th, and that letter
discusses her views on the congressional district map.
17
The other letter is dated November 9th, 2011.
18
That letter discusses her views on the draft legislative
19
map.
20
21
They're two-page letters.
They're in your
materials and for your consideration.
22
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Thank you.
23
Any comments or questions on those letters?
24
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
25
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 194
47 of 164
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
2
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
)
)
)
ss.
3
4
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceeding was
5
taken before me, Marty Herder, a Certified Court Reporter,
6
CCR No. 50162, State of Arizona; that the foregoing
7
194 pages constitute a true and accurate transcript of all
8
proceedings had upon the taking of said meeting, all done to
9
the best of my skill and ability.
10
11
DATED at Chandler, Arizona, this 6th day of
December, 2011.
12
13
__________________________
14
C. Martin Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter
Certificate No. 50162
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 48 of 164
EXHIBIT 5
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 49 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Scott Day Freeman, Vice Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Richard P. Stertz, Commissioner
Colleen Coyle Mathis, Chair
Notice is hereby given to the members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
and to the general public that the Commission will hold a meeting open to the public at the
time and location listed below for the purpose of hearing Citizen Comments and discussing
and acting on the items listed below:
Location:
Fiesta Resort – Fiesta Ballroom
2100 S. Priest Dr.
Tempe, AZ 85282
Date:
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Time:
4:00 P.M.
The Commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public,
for any item listed on the agenda, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice (A.R.S. §38431.03 (A) (3)and (4)). One or more of the members may participate via telephone or video
conferencing.
All matters on the agenda may be discussed, considered and are subject to action by the
Commission.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
I.
Call to Order.
II.
Discussion concerning process and schedule for adjusting draft maps to
develop final maps. (Estimated Time 45 minutes)
III.
Discussion of voting rights analysis of draft congressional and legislative
districts and benchmark districts, presentation by Strategic Telemetry and
Legal Counsel. (Estimated Time 60 minutes)
IV.
Overview of public input on draft maps, presentation by Strategic Telemetry.
(Estimated Time 45 minutes)
1
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 50 of 164
V.
Consideration of input from the Legislature through memorial and minority
report. (Estimated Time 30 minutes)
VI.
Consideration of Governor’s Letters on Mapping Adjustments. (Estimated
Time 15 minutes)
VII.
Discussion and possible direction to mapping consultant regarding
adjustments to draft Congressional districts. (Estimated Time 60 minutes)
VIII.
Discussion and possible direction to mapping consultant regarding
adjustments to draft legislative districts. (Estimated Time 60 minutes)
IX.
Legal advice, direction to counsel, discussion, possible action and update
regarding litigation on open meeting law. The Commission may vote to go
into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of
obtaining legal advice and providing direction to counsel (A.R.S. §38-431.03
(A) (3) and (4)). (Estimated Time 20 minutes)
X.
Legal advice, discussion and possible action regarding litigation about the
removal of the chair. The Commission may vote to go into executive session,
which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice
and direction to counsel (A.R.S. 38-431.-3(A)(3) and (4)).
XI.
Call for Public Comment. This is the time for the public to comment on items
on the agenda or redistricting maps. Members of the Commission may not
discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore,
pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.01(H), action taken as a result of public comment
on matters not on the agenda will be limited to directing staff to study the
matter, responding to any criticism or scheduling the matter for further
consideration and decision at a later date. (Estimated Time 30 minutes).
XII.
Adjournment.
A copy of the agenda provided to Commission members (with the exception of
material relating to possible executive sessions) is available for public inspection at
the Arizona Independent Commission’s office, 1100 W. Washington St. (The Evans
House) Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
Dated this 23rd day of November, 2011
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Colleen Coyle Mathis,
Chairman, by:
2
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 51 of 164
Raymond F. Bladine, Executive Director
Any person with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation, such as sign language
interpreter, by contacting 602-542-5221. Requests should be made as early as possible to
allow time to arrange accommodations.
3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 52 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
4:16 p.m.
Location
Fiesta Resort – Fiesta Ballroom
2100 South Priest Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282
Attending
Colleen C. Mathis, Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Richard P. Stertz, Commissioner
Ray Bladine, Executive Director
Buck Forst, Information Technology Specialist
Kristina Gomez, Deputy Executive Director
Stu Robinson, Public Information Officer
Mary O'Grady, Legal Counsel
Joe Kanefield, Legal Counsel
Bruce Adelson, Legal Counsel
Reported By:
Marty Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter #50162
www.CourtReportersAz.com
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 536of 164
1
Consideration of input from the legislature and
2
the next agenda item from the governor's letters on mapping
3
adjustments.
4
The Commission received letters, both through
5
memorial and minority report from the legislature and then
6
also from the governor's office.
7
a copy of that, and those will be taken into consideration
8
as we make mapping adjustments.
9
And each commissioner has
And then the next one is discussion and public --
10
possible direction to mapping consultant regarding
11
adjustments to draft congressional districts.
12
13
14
15
16
So, I think that's where we stand today on
number seven.
And we did talk to our mapping consultant
yesterday.
We had consensus from the group that it does make
17
sense to ensure that our voting rights districts, since that
18
is something that we have to comply with, it's a federal
19
requirement, are sound, and so we directed our mapping
20
consultant to take a closer look at some of that and maybe
21
they can walk us through what information they have.
22
KENNETH STRASMA:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
23
We did begin looking at some districts, and
24
Mr. Adelson and the rest of the legal team did this morning,
25
looking at some possibilities.
As was speculated yesterday,
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
16of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 54
1
two blocks, or these two block groups, and this one, these
2
are, these are all right on, right on the edge, grab this
3
one, this one, and this one.
4
What that would do is it would make District 26 --
5
it would lose 8,933 people, giving that district a deviation
6
of minus 6800, or I think that's roughly about four percent.
7
About three and a half percent maybe.
8
So within a range that Bruce and the legal team, I
9
believe, think is safe.
10
11
District 20 -- I'm just going to go ahead and -District 26 would also. . .
12
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
So just a clarification for
13
legal.
Not only is it safe, it's desirable, right, in this
14
instance?
15
based on we heard yesterday underpopulating those to account
16
for future population growth makes sense.
17
Is that right, or no?
18
BRUCE ADELSON:
Because this is a majority-minority district, and
Madam Chair, underpopulating
19
majority-minority districts, as you said, is an accepted
20
method of meeting the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.
21
Because that may typically increase the minority proportion,
22
which is key.
23
You could not necessarily add one additional
24
minority voter but still increase the minority proportion by
25
moving voters who are not crossover voters out of the
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 129
55 of 164
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
2
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
)
)
)
ss.
3
4
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceeding was
5
taken before me, Marty Herder, a Certified Court Reporter,
6
CCR No. 50162, State of Arizona; that the foregoing
7
128 pages constitute a true and accurate transcript of all
8
proceedings had upon the taking of said meeting, all done to
9
the best of my skill and ability.
10
11
DATED at Chandler, Arizona, this 8th day of
December, 2011.
12
13
__________________________
14
C. Martin Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter
Certificate No. 50162
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 56 of 164
EXHIBIT 6
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 57 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
1:09 p.m.
Location
Fiesta Resort – Fiesta I Ballroom
2100 South Priest Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282
Attending
Colleen C. Mathis, Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Scott Day Freeman, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Richard P. Stertz, Commissioner
Ray Bladine, Executive Director
Buck Forst, Information Technology Specialist
Kristina Gomez, Deputy Executive Director
Stu Robinson, Public Information Officer
Mary O'Grady, Legal Counsel
Reported By:
Marty Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter #50162
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
96of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 58
1
That's about all.
2
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
3
Any questions?
4
(No oral response.)
5
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
6
JAMES HOXWORTH:
7
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Okay.
Thanks.
All right.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I apologize, but State
8
Senator Cajero Bedford, she did fill out a request to speak
9
form and wanted to speak on some other matter.
10
11
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
apologize because I butted in.
12
13
Olivia Cajero Bedford, O-L-I-V-I-A, C-A-J-E-R-O,
Bedford, B-E-D-F-O-R-D.
14
15
Well, I should
Thank you members of the Commission -- can't hear
me?
16
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
If you could raise it.
17
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
18
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
19
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
How's that?
Great.
I'm here because
20
of the new 11 that the Tucson Mountain residents saw in the
21
last couple of days.
22
The Tucson Mountains are on the western boundary
23
of Tucson.
Those of you that are from Tucson would know the
24
area probably.
25
map that just came out a few days ago, it was included with
It's a very active area.
But in the latest
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
97of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 59
1
Eloy, Casa Grande, to the south boundary of Chandler.
2
Now I'm here because the Tucson Mountain
3
organizations and Tucson Mountain residents are communities
4
of interest.
5
They have been a very activist group, fighting
6
overzealous zoning.
7
the environment.
8
9
They have fought different issues on
A very strong group.
The Tucson Mountains are only five miles to
start -- about five miles west of downtown.
10
There is no commonality with what goes north.
11
So I would ask that you go back to the October map
12
that you have had, which put the Tucson Mountains in
13
District 3.
14
I sent out e-mails to different residents, because
15
people are out shopping, doing their Christmas stuff, and
16
not really -- nobody was paying attention, including me.
17
But, when I -- my response is, after I sent this
18
e-mail out, and it told some of the residents what was now
19
where the Tucson Mountains was going to be, they were very
20
upset.
21
Because the last information that we had, and
22
appears what we rely on, a lot of us, was this article that
23
talked about the residents of Oro Valley and Saddlebrooke.
24
And so there was a feeling, and I've talked with
25
members today, and they say this is not true, but this is
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
98of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 60
1
the feeling of the residents of the Tucson Mountains, is
2
that Oro Valley and Saddlebrooke are getting their way, and
3
so the people on the west side are getting -- the Tucson
4
Mountains are getting the shaft.
5
members, and I've been told that is not true.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
So, and I talked to
But that's the way it seemed because of what had
been in the paper and the latest map.
That takes the Tucson Mountains, which is so close
to downtown Tucson, and puts it in with the farmers and
ranchers, farmers in Eloy, Casa Grande.
So I'm asking that you go back to the map in
October, which was very, very good.
13
And let me -- glad to answer any questions.
14
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
15
Any questions?
16
(No oral response.)
17
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
Thank you.
Of course I was
18
going to comment about that four block by four block also,
19
but I got that started early.
20
It seems like 500 people in that four block area
21
is not accurate.
22
knowing the area.
23
24
25
That's just my impression, as I said,
Anyway, but I would ask that you please put the
Tucson Mountains back in with Tucson.
Don't put it in to -- you know, raise that
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
99of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 61
1
boundary, please.
2
Thank you very much.
3
I admire you.
4
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
5
Is there anyone else who wanted to address the
6
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Commission that I missed?
7
Please.
8
VICE MAYOR MARY HAMWAY:
9
sure exactly what happened to it.
10
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
11
VICE MAYOR MARY HAMWAY:
I have a form.
Tell us your name and -Mary Hamway, and I'm the
12
current vice mayor of the town of Paradise Valley.
13
H-A-M-W-A-Y.
14
See it?
15
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
16
apologize.
I'm not
Okay.
I must somehow -- I
I don't know what happened there.
17
Vice mayor, town of Paradise Valley.
18
VICE MAYOR MARY HAMWAY:
My comments will likely
19
repeat a lot that's already been said, but I did want you to
20
know that we were here and that I strongly support the
21
comments by Mayor LeMarr and also former Vice Mayor Ginny
22
Simpson.
23
24
25
But I just wanted to say that I'm here to speak
out against the Herrera map number -- known as version two.
This puts Paradise Valley in a legislative
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 220
62 of 164
1
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
2
again, if we can avoid it.
3
proposal.
4
5
WILLIE DESMOND:
I'd rather not split Mesa
I'd rather pursue your first
Okay.
Just to refresh you on
that one.
6
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
7
split if we did it the other way; right?
8
9
WILLIE DESMOND:
That would also be a county
No, we would be able to stay
within Maricopa County here.
10
The county line, let me go a little heavier.
11
The county line runs right here.
12
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
13
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
14
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
The -- District 23 as it is
15
now is -- it's not underpopulated.
16
ideal.
17
It's actually almost
So what is the rationale of making those changes?
18
Is it, is it because of 16 being a little overpopulated?
19
can certainly -- if that's the case, it's still under the
20
five percent threshold that we talked about.
21
WILLIE DESMOND:
I
I guess the thinking being
22
that since it's kind of been the policy of the Commission
23
to underpopulate voting rights districts to the extent that
24
it helps improve their performance, the rest of the
25
districts that are not voting rights districts might have to
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 221
63 of 164
1
share some of that burden and have kind of a pseudo-ideal
2
population that's somewhat a little bit above the 213,067
3
that, that would be ideal if all districts were of equal
4
size.
5
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
6
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
7
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
Madam Chair.
Mr. Stertz.
Could you bring up the
8
street layer on that as well?
9
to make sure that we're not interrupting.
10
WILLIE DESMOND:
Because if you just -- I want
So what this would do is
11
District 25 will continue, continue east on McKellips --
12
McKellips, sorry, will continue east on McKellips until it
13
hits Usery Pass Road, and it will continue up Usery Pass
14
Road to, to the border with 23 and Indian reservation.
15
16
Currently District 25 runs up at 76th Street, over
at Hermosa Vista, and then up at 84th Street.
17
So move backward.
18
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
19
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
20
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
Madam Chair.
Mr. Stertz.
You can actually go all the
21
way up to the county line to the right, pick up that
22
unincorporated area, that last little piece.
23
WILLIE DESMOND:
Well, the issue is that 16 does
24
not have much -- or 25, excuse me, does not have much
25
population to grab.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 244
64 of 164
1
the very end of that.
2
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Can you repeat?
3
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
I move that we adopt the
4
working draft map that we're looking at now with the changes
5
that we've discussed today and directed Mr. Desmond to make
6
as he just described them as our tentative final legislative
7
map subject to the possibility of future changes based on
8
recommendations of our mapping consultant or legal counsel
9
to address technical or legal changes and subject to
10
approval by this Commission of any changes that they do
11
recommend.
12
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Is there a second?
13
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
14
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Any discussion?
15
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
16
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
17
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Mr. Desmond, if you don't
I'll second the motion.
18
mind just quickly going through using index two for this
19
particular version, using -- letting me know the
20
competitiveness, how many are under five, just -- I would
21
love to know.
22
23
24
25
And then if you can quickly go over how many are
under ten -- how many are ten and under.
WILLIE DESMOND:
I can't do that quickly, because
there's been other changes to the map.
I have to put it all
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 245
65 of 164
1
together and make a report.
2
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
3
WILLIE DESMOND:
4
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
5
Never mind.
6
Okay.
Then --
Sorry about that.
No, no problem with that.
Thank you though.
WILLIE DESMOND:
I could -- I could go over which
7
districts have changed and we could look at the -- next to
8
the other one, but. . .
9
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
No.
That's fine.
10
Thank you.
11
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
12
(No oral response.)
13
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
14
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
15
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
16
Any opposed?
17
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair, I'm abstaining.
18
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Okay.
19
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
Nay.
20
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
21
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Any other discussion?
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Well, well, well.
Madam Chair, what I'd like to
22
do if I -- if it's not going to pass, can we go back to my
23
map?
24
25
I'd like to -- I was serious about my map.
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Well, we're waiting for one
other vote.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 246
66 of 164
1
2
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
I thought
everybody voted.
3
Sorry about that.
4
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
5
Oh, I apologize.
Madam Chair, I will have to
vote no for the purposes of Districts 8 and 11.
6
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
7
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
Okay.
In the absence of a nay vote
8
by my abstention, it would have -- the vote would have
9
succeeded two to one, but by our constitutional requirements
10
the vote needs to have three positive votes to pass through.
11
So. . .
12
If we're going to visit Maricopa County and
13
revisits those districts, I'd like to revisit 8 and 11 in
14
their entirety.
15
And if we're going to visit that, then I'd start
16
to -- I think I'd like to start revisiting some of the other
17
areas of the state as well.
18
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
19
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
20
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
I -- you know, Mr. Stertz's
21
is entitled to do that, creating a completely different map
22
that the -- if he wants than the one I'll create.
23
Again, my map is mirroring the map we are doing
24
now that Mr. Stertz was praising quite a bit.
And -- so my,
25
my changes won't be that different other than those three
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 247
67 of 164
1
districts that will be affected.
2
So what I would like to do, Mr. Desmond, if you
3
can go back to my map, and let's start making the changes
4
now.
5
time.
I don't -- I think it's not going to be a waste of my
And see what we can do.
6
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Before we do that though,
7
Mr. Herrera, did any other commissioner want to explain
8
anything?
9
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
Madam Chair.
10
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Freeman.
11
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
I think this is all -- I
12
think this is emblematic -- I lost my windscreen again -- of
13
the theater that's going on here.
14
15
16
17
18
I mean, either the map was good, it met the
constitutional criteria, or it didn't.
And instead what we got was a threat basically.
Take this map or we'll make it much worse.
So now we're seeing that, at least from my
19
perspective, I'm seeing that play out.
20
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
21
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
22
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Yeah, I, I, I -- my proposal
23
24
25
was never seemed -- I never thought of it as a threat.
I really -- from the beginning I've been saying
that I -- that we can create more competitive districts
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 248
68 of 164
1
without any significant detriment to the other goals.
2
So, I, I, you know, I'm sorry that
3
Commissioner Freeman sees it that way.
4
5
I was pretty clear, again, as I think he stated a
couple of meetings ago, that I don't have a poker face.
6
7
And I don't.
I'm extremely
honest.
8
9
I don't gamble.
I've said it all along that my intention is to
create as many competitive districts as possible, especially
10
in the Maricopa County area.
And, again, without any
11
significant detriment to the other goals.
12
So I don't see what -- where -- what threat.
13
I was serious about this.
14
I mean, I'm, I'm -- what I'd would like to do now
15
And as I am now.
is start looking at, at the map I've been proposing.
16
And, again, this -- there should be no surprise.
17
I brought this up over a week ago, I think.
And I've been
18
continuously talking about the, the benefits of having a
19
competitive district in 28.
20
So, and -- so this is no threat.
21
It should have been no surprise to
22
Commissioner Freeman, to anyone on this commissioner.
23
24
25
I think not to McNulty, not to Mathis, not to
Stertz.
Again, I'm sorry that he sees it that way.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 249
69 of 164
1
This is -- and, and, again, this is, this is --
2
we're all doing our best.
And, and we've made significant
3
progress today.
4
some of the changes that I want.
5
changes that I want.
But I have a right to be able to recommend
And this is some of the
6
So, if we can move forward, I would love to have
7
Mr. Desmond balance out the population between 28, 15, and
8
20.
9
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
10
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
11
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
Madam Chair.
Mr. Stertz.
Commissioner Herrera, the --
12
one of the things I had asked about last Thursday was what
13
of the districts that you are really -- that you really feel
14
passionate about.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
You know, it's funny, the word passion in the
Greek means to suffer.
That might be sort of amusing right now as we're
getting to this.
And, again, my, my, my action on this is not -I'm trying not to be a contrarian here.
Because the -- other than 8 and 11, I'm liking
where the map has gone.
23
Okay.
24
And I'm hoping that we can get to -- still get to
25
a vote tonight that can get to an affirmative.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 250
70 of 164
1
It's pretty, it's pretty clear that from my
2
perspective and Commissioner Freeman's perspective that 28,
3
the way that Commissioner McNulty had crafted it, worked
4
pretty well as a district.
5
6
You're trying to get 15 -- which district are you
trying to get competitive, 15?
7
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
8
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Twenty-eight.
9
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair, as I stated
10
before, 28 -- again, without any significant detriment to
11
the other goals, I think we can, we can do that with 28.
12
And I am fine with 8 and 11.
As a matter of fact,
13
I think there's, there's an opposite for -- the things that
14
we have issues with, with the working draft map, is
15
completely the opposite.
16
17
18
19
20
I have an issue with 28, as I stated before.
Again, this should be no surprise.
I, I was serious about making 28 competitive,
because I think we can.
And I've proven that we can.
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
So, Madam Chair, because we
21
were talking about 11, because the Tucson Mountains are now
22
included in 11, there was, there was some great testimony
23
that obviously wasn't put on the record, that was some
24
very -- some folks that were real upset that the
25
Tucson Mountains were taken -- were taken away from the city
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 251
71 of 164
1
of Tucson and put up with Pinal County and the district
2
which stretches all the way up into Maricopa County almost.
3
They were very surprised by that, because that was something
4
that occurred in the last go-round of the shift.
5
6
7
Eight is now a district that, that -- again, the
8 and 11 I disagree with.
So, if we've got -- if we start looking at these,
8
which districts do you want to -- you're trying to get 28 to
9
become a competitive district by -- if we can go back to 28
10
11
in Commissioner Herrera's map.
If you're trying to get it so that because there's
12
a, there's a concentrated population of Republicans in
13
Paradise Valley and you are extracting those out of 20 --
14
out of the current 28 in an effort to make that more
15
competitive.
16
Even though that district that Maricopa -- or that
17
Paradise Valley is connected with up is up into 15 doesn't
18
have the natural connection, economically, geographically,
19
or with the other criterion as designed.
20
21
22
This seems to be just a -- this is just -- your
goal is really to get 28 to be competitive; correct?
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
My goal, as I said all along,
23
was to get as many competitive districts without creating
24
any detriment to the other goals.
25
And I believe -- and I disagree with
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 252
72 of 164
1
Commissioner Freeman.
2
that -- to any of goals.
3
I don't think this a detriment to
And, and, as I said, can we -- if we can, so in
4
the interest of time, move forward with, with -- because I
5
want to do is I want to start working on changes to my map
6
and start seeing if we can tweak some of the -- or fix the
7
population imbalances between those three districts that are
8
affected, and we can start doing that now.
9
Because now, as I said, I stated before, I didn't
10
want to waste my time.
11
waste of my time.
12
13
Now I feel like it wouldn't be a
WILLIE DESMOND:
As it was currently constituted, District 28 is
15
positive by 4,217 people.
16
7,129.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So we had done some slight
balancing before.
14
17
Okay.
District 20 is overpopulated by
And District 15 is overpopulated.
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Can you repeat that again?
I'm sorry.
MARY O'GRADY:
Just to clarify where we are, do we
still have a motion on the table at this point?
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
The motion failed, is the way
I read that, but it was -COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
Two to two and one
abstention.
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Yeah, two ayes, two nays, and
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 253
73 of 164
1
one abstention.
2
Before we start to go into looking at more
3
modifications to 28, I, I have to say I'm a little puzzled
4
by Mr. Freeman's vote, and I'm wondering if he would be
5
willing to explain that so that I can just understand.
6
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
7
I mean, the districts by and large, at least in
8
Maricopa County, I don't have a significant problem with.
9
Explain my vote?
I think my main problem is the threat that was
10
carried out.
That it was either take this, take this map or
11
I'm going to shove this other map down your throat.
12
And that to me is unacceptable.
13
And Commissioner Herrera should have been able to
14
vote yes or no on that proposed map, and he chose to play
15
this game.
16
And I don't agree with it.
17
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
18
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
19
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
How many times has
20
Commissioner Stertz or Freeman abstained from voting?
21
22
And I've never disagreed with them, because that
was their opinion.
23
24
25
And I never thought of it as a game.
choice.
That's their
They have that option.
I think I'm correct in saying that abstention is a
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 254
74 of 164
1
option.
2
3
I didn't make it up.
I think Commissioner Freeman knows that, that it
is option, abstaining from a vote.
4
And he's done that -- I think he's done that on
5
numerous times, whether it be abstaining or saying or voting
6
no.
7
And I, I -- again, this isn't a threat.
8
I had a strong feeling that they were going to
9
vote no -- no against this map.
That's why I was proposing
10
the map that I'm proposing, because I didn't think it was
11
going to pass.
12
13
And because as I said it all along, I wanted
another competitive district in Maricopa County.
14
15
16
And I think we can, we can, we can achieve that
now.
And, again, I don't know what is leading Mr. --
17
Commissioner Freeman to think that this is a threat.
18
never mentioned this as a threat.
19
I've
I'm extremely serious, but he -- like he is,
20
on proposing CD 9.
21
competitive district -- another competitive district in
22
Maricopa County.
23
I'm very serious in creating a
So, again, let's -- if I can move forward, if no
24
one else has any comment, I'd love to move forward and start
25
working on my changes.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 255
75 of 164
1
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
2
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
3
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
Madam Chair.
Mr. Stertz.
Commissioner Herrera, just
4
as part of the point of clarification, the abstentions that
5
I have made were always the same.
6
that came when we were asked to go into executive session,
7
as has been made clear even by the vote -- by the -- or by
8
the decision by the -- by Judge Fink.
9
doesn't apply to us.
And they were abstentions
The open meeting law
10
And I have been making that statement over and
11
over again that I couldn't vote for something to go into
12
executive session, therefore I abstained from voting because
13
I was in agreement that, that we should be -- open
14
meeting -- that we should not be going into executive
15
session.
16
17
So those are my abstentions, and I just wanted to
make sure and clarify that.
18
Lastly, if there's -- is there any -- let's go
19
back to this discussion of -- because we're going to have,
20
we're going to have no movement from myself on 28 and 20 or
21
15.
22
23
24
25
Is there any movement on 11 or 8 from three of the
commissioners?
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair, those are two
districts that I do like.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 256
76 of 164
1
2
So, I -- no.
in those two districts.
3
4
Those -- I have no movement from me
So, again, I have a map that I have been proposing
working on, and I'd like to go back to that map.
5
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
6
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
7
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
Madam Chair.
Mr. Stertz.
Obviously you can't force
8
the commissioner to have a vote, and for you to have -- it
9
would be disingenuous for me to be able to propose or to, or
10
to accept this with knowing that 8 and 11 are nonnegotiable
11
and for me 20, 28 and 15 are nonnegotiable.
12
13
So, we, we may be -- it's going to come back to
you, Madam Chair, as the decision maker on this.
14
You voted in the affirmative that you like the
15
mid-Phoenix maps.
16
going to continue to go down the road tonight in trying to
17
make adjustments to something that both you -- you, myself,
18
and Commissioner McNulty like, because I -- and I believe --
19
I can't speak for Commissioner Freeman because he -- his
20
issue was more about sort of blockade of being able to move
21
this forward.
22
And I'd like to hear whether or not we're
I'd like -- like I said, other than, other than
23
8 and 11, I'm really liking how this map is working itself
24
out.
25
And -© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 257
77 of 164
1
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
2
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
3
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
4
Mr. Stertz?
Yes.
Why don't you just vote for
it and then we can go home.
5
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair, the -- this --
6
the question that Commissioner Stertz is proposing is really
7
irrelevant now.
The map didn't pass as it.
8
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
9
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
10
I think it's very relevant.
I --
11
12
Remove it.
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
So, Madam Chair, what I would
like to do is to move to my map --
13
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
We're talking over each
15
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
I apologize.
16
As I said, the question that
14
other.
17
Commissioner Stertz -- and, I mean, I know why he asked.
18
And I have no, no problem with that question.
19
The problem is that the map as is wasn't approved.
20
So whether you liked the way that
21
Commissioner McNulty created 28 is really irrelevant.
22
23
The question is that I'm proposing can I move
forward to my map now.
24
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
25
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Madam Chair.
Mr. Stertz.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 258
78 of 164
1
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
If Commissioner McNulty
2
wants to remove -- wants to remake the motion, I will vote
3
in the affirmative.
4
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
I move that we adopt the
5
working draft map that we have in front of us which includes
6
the changes that we've discussed tonight and have been made
7
by Mr. Desmond as our tentative final legislative map
8
subject to the possibility of changes recommended by our
9
mapping consultant or legal counsel to an address technical
10
or legal issues and subject to approval by this Commission
11
of any changes that they might recommend.
12
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
13
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
14
Did I leave something out,
Ms. O'Grady?
15
16
Second.
MARY O'GRADY:
If I can have a moment in terms of
parliamentary process.
17
You need to be on the -- if this is a motion to
18
reconsider, essentially, the map that did not pass on the
19
previous motion, the motion has to be made by someone on the
20
prevailing side of the prior motion.
21
22
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
There was no prevailing
side.
23
MARY O'GRADY:
24
I'm checking my Roberts right now, but the motion
25
The motion doesn't carry.
didn't carry.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 259
79 of 164
1
If we want to take a five-minute recess, I will
2
check that.
3
reconsider, essentially then it might need to be made by
4
someone on the prevailing side, since the motion didn't
5
carry.
6
7
So I'm double checking that right now.
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
Are you saying Mr. Herrera
needs to make the motion?
8
9
That's my concern, that if this is a motion to
MARY O'GRADY:
I don't think he's on the
prevailing side either for this map.
10
And, again, I want to, I want to double check
11
this, but the prevailing side would be the people who voted
12
no.
13
14
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Why don't we take a
five-minute break then and just confirm all that.
15
So the time is 8:56 p.m.
16
(Brief recess taken.)
17
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
18
public session.
Okay.
We'll enter back into
The time is 9:04 p.m.
19
I believe our legal counsel was checking into
20
matters with regard to possible parliamentary procedure
21
surrounding this motion situation.
22
MARY O'GRADY:
My recommendation would be that if
23
it's going to be a different motion, anyone can make such a
24
motion.
25
If it's going to be the precise same motion that
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 260
80 of 164
1
was made previously, it should be made by someone on the
2
prevailing side.
3
The prevailing side, since the previous motion did
4
not carry, would be those who opposed the previous motion.
5
But a different motion may be made by any member
6
of the Commission.
7
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Thank you.
8
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
9
entertain a different motion?
10
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
11
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
Madam Chair, would you
I would.
I would move that we adopt
12
the working draft map that we are currently looking at with
13
the changes that we have discussed today and directed
14
Mr. Desmond to make, and with the further direction that he
15
include on a parallel track analysis of the change in
16
District 24 to address the school district issue so that
17
that can be looked at on a parallel track by Dr. King also,
18
with the caveat that the map is our tentative final
19
legislative map and subject to the possibility of future
20
changes based on recommendations of our mapping consultant
21
or our legal counsel to adjust technical or legal issues and
22
subject to approval of any such recommendations by this
23
Commission.
24
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
25
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
I'll second that motion.
Any discussion?
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 261
81 of 164
1
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
2
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
3
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
4
Madam Chair.
Mr. Stertz.
Thank you for entertaining
and going through the process of the new motion.
5
I'm going to be voting in the affirmative
6
reluctantly, because of Districts 8 and 11, which I still
7
significantly disagree with the way that they were crafted
8
and introduced.
9
I'm -- and, however the work product that has been
10
put forth by the Commission as a whole includes a higher
11
level of, of positive adjustments that have been made than
12
the preponderance of the negative design of Districts 8 and
13
11.
14
So even though my opinion of those two districts
15
specifically has not changed, I will -- I have seconded this
16
motion and I will be voting in the affirmative for it.
17
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
18
Any other discussion?
19
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
20
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
21
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
And I -- as before I will be
22
23
Thank you.
abstaining from this motion, as I stated before.
I think we can -- we owe it to the citizens of
24
Arizona and those who voted for Prop 106 to create an
25
additional competitive district in Maricopa County.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 262
82 of 164
1
2
And I think that I was able to do that along with
the, the help obviously from Mr. Desmond.
3
4
So that's the reason why I'll be abstaining from
the vote.
5
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
6
Other discussion?
7
(No oral response.)
8
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
9
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
10
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
11
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Aye.
12
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Any opposed?
13
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
Nay.
14
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
And Mr. Herrera is
15
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
abstaining.
16
17
Thank you.
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Actually, Madam Chair, I will
be voting no as well.
18
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
19
So we have three ayes and two nays, Freeman and
20
21
Okay.
Herrera.
Okay.
That means the motion carries, and we have
22
a tentative legislative map that will be doing further
23
analysis on.
24
25
And to quote Bruce Springsteen, I believe in the
promised land.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 275
83 of 164
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
2
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
)
)
)
ss.
3
4
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceeding was
5
taken before me, Marty Herder, a Certified Court Reporter,
6
CCR No. 50162, State of Arizona; that the foregoing
7
274 pages constitute a true and accurate transcript of all
8
proceedings had upon the taking of said meeting, all done to
9
the best of my skill and ability.
10
11
DATED at Chandler, Arizona, this 4th day of
January, 2012.
12
13
__________________________
14
C. Martin Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter
Certificate No. 50162
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 84 of 164
EXHIBIT 7
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 85 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
9:19 a.m.
Location
Crown Plaza Phoenix Airport (Desert 12 meeting room)
4300 East Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
Attending
Colleen C. Mathis, Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Scott Day Freeman, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Richard P. Stertz, Commissioner
Ray Bladine, Executive Director
Buck Forst, Information Technology Specialist
Kristina Gomez, Deputy Executive Director
Mary O'Grady, Legal Counsel
Joe Kanefield, Legal Counsel
Reported By:
Marty Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter #50162
© AZ Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtreportersAz.com
43of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 86
1
motion.
2
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
I would make a motion that
3
we approve the final tentative legislative map with the
4
technical adjustments that Mr. Desmond has prepared and
5
provided to us.
6
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Is there a second?
7
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair, I'll second that
9
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Any discussion?
10
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
Madam Chair.
11
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Freeman.
12
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
Just a question.
8
motion.
Does --
13
that motion, as I understand it, does not include a
14
directive to submit the maps to the Department of Justice,
15
is my understanding.
16
Correct?
17
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
18
I think that's a separate
agenda item.
19
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
Thank you.
20
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
And I would just like to ask
21
legal counsel, too, to confirm that it's okay that we
22
proceed on this particular agenda item at this time.
23
24
25
MARY O'GRADY:
Madam Chair, yes, it's okay to
proceed.
And we saw two -- a two-phase approval process
© AZ Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtreportersAz.com
52of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 87
1
Mr. Herrera just said.
2
I tried to remain silence, to suggest that I in any way
3
agree with the record that Mr. Freeman and Mr. Stertz are
4
continuing to make.
5
6
I don't want by my silence, although
I think our record will stand.
itself.
7
I regret the comments that they made about lack of
8
truthfulness.
9
disappointed by that.
I think that's shameful frankly.
10
That's all I have to say.
11
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
12
Okay.
(No oral response.)
14
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
beginning.
All in favor?
17
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
18
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
19
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
20
Any opposed?
21
COMMISSIONER STERTZ:
No.
22
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
Nay.
23
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Okay.
25
So any other
So let's start from the
16
24
And I am
discussion?
13
15
It speaks for
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
The motion carries
then.
We've approved final legislative districts on a
© AZ Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtreportersAz.com
97of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 88
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
2
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
)
)
)
ss.
3
4
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceeding was
5
taken before me, Marty Herder, a Certified Court Reporter,
6
CCR No. 50162, State of Arizona; that the foregoing 96 pages
7
constitute a true and accurate transcript of all proceedings
8
had upon the taking of said meeting, all done to the best of
9
my skill and ability.
10
11
DATED at Chandler, Arizona, this 23rd day of
January, 2012.
12
13
__________________________
14
C. Martin Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter
Certificate No. 50162
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
© AZ Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtreportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 89 of 164
EXHIBIT 8
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 90 of 164
Page Number 1
STATE OF ARIZONA REGISTRATION REPORT
Report Date/Time: 04/06/2012 11:57 AM
2012 March Voter Registration - March 1, 2012
Compiled and Issued by the Arizona Secretary of State
ACTIVE
Precincts Date/Period
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
TOTALS:
PERCENTAGES:
Democratic
Green
Libertarian
Republican
Americans
Other
TOTAL
45 G.E. 2010
26,458
30
157
6,949
*
10,457
44,051
45 PPE 2012
26,761
45
162
7,452
0
11,387
45,807
45 MAR 2012
26,777
45
160
7,557
0
11,465
46,004
64 G.E. 2010
23,438
137
334
29,097
*
24,471
77,477
64 PPE 2012
22,490
137
342
29,284
4
26,453
78,710
64 MAR 2012
22,499
137
342
29,287
4
26,501
78,770
85 G.E. 2010
27,645
259
817
18,433
*
21,651
68,805
85 PPE 2012
26,439
240
753
18,014
1
21,459
66,906
85 MAR 2012
26,341
234
738
18,187
2
21,434
66,936
39 G.E. 2010
11,800
23
152
11,143
*
7,041
30,159
39 PPE 2012
11,428
27
159
11,530
1
7,848
30,993
39 MAR 2012
11,392
28
161
11,727
0
8,003
31,311
18 G.E. 2010
6,823
3
56
7,340
*
3,348
17,570
19 PPE 2012
6,567
6
58
7,564
1
4,010
18,206
19 MAR 2012
6,547
6
63
7,774
1
4,041
18,432
8 G.E. 2010
2,443
4
22
1,013
*
721
4,203
8 PPE 2012
2,388
3
19
1,068
0
861
4,339
8 MAR 2012
2,371
3
20
1,074
0
881
4,349
12 G.E. 2010
2,688
11
28
3,171
*
2,790
8,688
12 PPE 2012
2,708
16
28
3,351
0
3,224
9,327
12 MAR 2012
2,702
18
29
3,402
0
3,278
9,429
1,142 G.E. 2010
541,711
2,427
15,599
703,288
*
588,931
1,851,956
1,142 PPE 2012
516,273
2,532
14,333
701,675
88
627,201
1,862,102
1,142 MAR 2012
516,509
2,525
14,368
706,298
101
630,275
1,870,076
73 G.E. 2010
28,210
113
560
46,663
*
40,792
116,338
73 PPE 2012
24,303
97
530
44,147
1
39,332
108,410
73 MAR 2012
24,223
96
528
44,532
1
39,571
108,951
70 G.E. 2010
24,815
45
391
18,274
*
14,177
57,702
70 PPE 2012
24,599
53
373
18,593
0
15,060
58,678
70 MAR 2012
24,592
55
372
18,918
0
15,166
59,103
417 G.E. 2010
187,259
1,250
3,956
151,502
*
142,730
486,697
417 PPE 2012
175,712
1,220
3,485
148,590
19
141,150
470,176
417 MAR 2012
176,840
1,236
3,507
150,603
29
142,744
474,959
88 G.E. 2010
52,656
180
972
54,000
*
56,484
164,292
88 PPE 2012
48,179
194
955
53,751
7
60,230
163,316
88 MAR 2012
48,323
197
971
54,653
7
60,472
164,623
24 G.E. 2010
11,536
27
140
3,825
*
6,616
22,144
24 PPE 2012
11,581
32
136
3,867
0
7,184
22,800
24 MAR 2012
11,611
32
136
3,914
0
7,255
22,948
112 G.E. 2010
28,230
261
851
53,793
*
37,983
121,118
112 PPE 2012
27,168
275
818
54,543
0
41,128
123,932
112 MAR 2012
27,194
269
828
54,460
1
41,372
124,124
42 G.E. 2010
27,225
50
347
23,311
*
24,285
75,218
42 PPE 2012
24,763
48
305
21,297
3
24,116
70,532
42 MAR 2012
24,986
48
307
21,708
2
24,549
71,600
2,239 G.E. 2010
1,002,937
4,820
24,382
1,131,802
*
982,477
3,146,418
2,240 PPE 2012
951,359
4,925
22,456
1,124,726
125
1,030,643
3,134,234
2,240 MAR 2012
952,907
4,929
22,530
1,134,094
148
1,037,007
3,151,615
G.E. 2010
31.88
0.15
0.77
35.97
*
31.23
PPE 2012
30.35
0.16
0.72
35.89
0.00
32.88
MAR 2012
30.24
0.16
0.71
35.98
0.00
32.90
* - Party was not a recognized party during this cycle
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 91 of 164
Page Number 2
STATE OF ARIZONA REGISTRATION REPORT
Report Date/Time: 04/06/2012 11:57 AM
2012 March Voter Registration - March 1, 2012
Compiled and Issued by the Arizona Secretary of State
ACTIVE
Congressional
Congressional District 1
Apache
Precincts
Democratic
Green
Libertarian
Republican
Americans
Other
TOTAL
45
26,777
45
160
7,557
0
11,465
46,004
Coconino
78
26,057
234
730
18,118
2
21,200
66,341
Gila
39
11,392
28
161
11,727
0
8,003
31,311
Graham
19
6,547
6
63
7,774
1
4,041
18,432
Greenlee
8
2,371
3
20
1,074
0
881
4,349
52
23,553
49
312
18,633
0
14,239
56,786
Navajo
Pinal
42
22,790
60
287
17,699
2
20,358
61,196
Yavapai
110
27,194
269
828
54,460
1
41,372
124,124
TOTALS
393
146,681
694
2,561
137,042
6
121,559
408,543
7
284
0
8
69
0
234
595
1
5
0
0
3
0
9
17
Maricopa
214
106,128
363
2,352
164,723
20
135,414
409,000
Mohave
73
24,223
96
528
44,532
1
39,571
108,951
Navajo
18
1,039
6
60
285
0
927
2,317
Yavapai
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
315
131,679
465
2,948
209,612
21
176,155
520,880
249
92,616
484
2,798
147,151
20
110,201
353,270
249
92,616
484
2,798
147,151
20
110,201
353,270
163
89,892
361
2,625
36,351
4
74,211
203,444
163
89,892
361
2,625
36,351
4
74,211
203,444
248
103,841
743
3,189
147,719
23
135,080
390,595
248
103,841
743
3,189
147,719
23
135,080
390,595
230
102,781
520
2,913
196,742
32
152,880
455,868
29
15,597
95
467
25,255
4
26,864
68,282
259
118,378
615
3,380
221,997
36
179,744
524,150
Congressional District 2
Coconino
La Paz
Congressional District 3
Maricopa
TOTALS
Congressional District 4
Maricopa
TOTALS
Congressional District 5
Maricopa
TOTALS
Congressional District 6
Maricopa
Pinal
TOTALS
Congressional District 7
La Paz
11
2,697
18
29
3,399
0
3,269
9,412
38
21,251
54
491
13,612
2
22,489
57,899
Pima
136
68,682
532
1,244
25,726
6
44,308
140,498
Pinal
15
8,116
41
207
7,848
1
10,908
27,121
Santa Cruz
19
10,337
22
105
2,729
0
6,292
19,485
Yuma
42
24,986
48
307
21,708
2
24,549
71,600
261
136,069
715
2,383
75,022
11
111,815
326,015
Maricopa
TOTALS
Congressional District 8
Cochise
64
22,499
137
342
29,287
4
26,501
78,770
Pima
281
108,158
704
2,263
124,877
23
98,436
334,461
Pinal
2
1,820
1
10
3,851
0
2,342
8,024
Santa Cruz
5
1,274
10
31
1,185
0
963
3,463
352
133,751
852
2,646
159,200
27
128,242
424,718
2,240
952,907
4,929
22,530
1,134,094
148
1,037,007
3,151,615
TOTALS
STATE TOTALS
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 92 of 164
Page Number 3
STATE OF ARIZONA REGISTRATION REPORT
Report Date/Time: 04/06/2012 11:57 AM
2012 March Voter Registration - March 1, 2012
Compiled and Issued by the Arizona Secretary of State
ACTIVE
Legislative
Legislative District 1
Coconino
Precincts
Democratic
Green
Libertarian
Republican
Americans
Other
TOTAL
22
5,841
63
193
7,372
0
6,746
20,215
Yavapai
88
23,855
244
705
46,797
0
35,846
107,447
TOTALS
110
29,696
307
898
54,169
0
42,592
127,662
32
23,933
32
101
3,527
0
8,770
36,363
56
19,284
164
506
8,981
2
13,023
41,960
Legislative District 2
Apache
Coconino
Mohave
1
243
0
1
62
0
184
490
Navajo
37
12,335
20
192
2,075
0
5,487
20,109
Yavapai
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
127
55,795
216
800
14,645
2
27,464
98,922
4,761
Legislative District 3
Coconino
6
1,216
7
39
1,834
0
1,665
La Paz
5
962
12
14
1,777
0
1,565
4,330
Mohave
72
23,980
96
527
44,470
1
39,387
108,461
TOTALS
83
26,158
115
580
48,081
1
42,617
117,552
155,671
Legislative District 4
Maricopa
80
35,118
103
732
70,308
6
49,404
Yavapai
23
3,339
25
123
7,663
1
5,526
16,677
TOTALS
103
38,457
128
855
77,971
7
54,930
172,348
13
2,844
13
59
4,030
0
2,695
9,641
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gila
37
10,867
28
160
11,710
0
7,901
30,666
Graham
19
6,547
6
63
7,774
1
4,041
18,432
Greenlee
8
2,371
3
20
1,074
0
881
4,349
33
12,257
35
180
16,843
0
9,679
38,994
Legislative District 5
Apache
Coconino
Navajo
Pinal
TOTALS
Legislative District 6
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 7
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 8
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 9
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 10
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 11
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 12
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 13
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 14
Maricopa
TOTALS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
34,886
85
482
41,431
1
25,197
102,082
67
25,968
151
845
46,036
5
35,686
108,691
67
25,968
151
845
46,036
5
35,686
108,691
59
23,544
105
675
46,768
3
34,202
105,297
59
23,544
105
675
46,768
3
34,202
105,297
76
28,109
137
727
58,393
5
43,298
130,669
76
28,109
137
727
58,393
5
43,298
130,669
60
30,063
100
602
43,807
4
34,378
108,954
60
30,063
100
602
43,807
4
34,378
108,954
56
21,527
113
651
24,413
8
23,134
69,846
56
21,527
113
651
24,413
8
23,134
69,846
83
28,868
143
775
42,773
6
26,349
98,914
83
28,868
143
775
42,773
6
26,349
98,914
78
46,351
178
1,223
54,758
8
58,706
161,224
78
46,351
178
1,223
54,758
8
58,706
161,224
44
23,860
48
860
9,797
0
22,051
56,616
44
23,860
48
860
9,797
0
22,051
56,616
38
15,902
56
513
6,520
1
13,741
36,733
38
15,902
56
513
6,520
1
13,741
36,733
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 93 of 164
Page Number 4
STATE OF ARIZONA REGISTRATION REPORT
Report Date/Time: 04/06/2012 11:57 AM
2012 March Voter Registration - March 1, 2012
Compiled and Issued by the Arizona Secretary of State
ACTIVE
Legislative
Legislative District 15
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 16
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 17
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 18
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 19
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 20
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 21
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 22
Maricopa
Pinal
TOTALS
Legislative District 23
Gila
Precincts
Democratic
Green
Libertarian
Republican
Americans
Other
TOTAL
48
21,509
176
663
12,330
3
17,611
52,292
48
21,509
176
663
12,330
3
17,611
52,292
45
37,083
101
736
11,666
2
29,014
78,602
45
37,083
101
736
11,666
2
29,014
78,602
69
28,785
312
1,072
26,247
2
32,994
89,412
69
28,785
312
1,072
26,247
2
32,994
89,412
51
18,605
138
612
27,336
13
25,216
71,920
51
18,605
138
612
27,336
13
25,216
71,920
65
25,658
135
690
51,644
9
37,222
115,358
65
25,658
135
690
51,644
9
37,222
115,358
59
28,964
162
776
39,416
10
34,635
103,963
59
28,964
162
776
39,416
10
34,635
103,963
79
37,177
200
1,050
60,732
10
52,908
152,077
79
37,177
200
1,050
60,732
10
52,908
152,077
62
33,816
160
1,032
70,099
6
53,043
158,156
8
3,621
13
66
5,754
1
5,705
15,160
70
37,437
173
1,098
75,853
7
58,748
173,316
2
525
0
1
17
0
102
645
Maricopa
12
4,648
6
102
2,007
0
5,530
12,293
Pinal
75
42,046
177
859
44,071
6
51,399
138,558
TOTALS
89
47,219
183
962
46,095
6
57,031
151,496
Legislative District 24
La Paz
7
1,740
6
15
1,625
0
1,713
5,099
Yuma
42
24,986
48
307
21,708
2
24,549
71,600
TOTALS
49
26,726
54
322
23,333
2
26,262
76,699
49,388
Legislative District 25
Cochise
46
15,748
114
209
17,466
4
15,847
Maricopa
11
954
1
32
1,248
0
1,153
3,388
Pima
29
10,129
45
216
9,382
0
9,183
28,955
Pinal
Santa Cruz
TOTALS
Legislative District 26
Pima
Pinal
TOTALS
Legislative District 27
Pima
TOTALS
Legislative District 28
Pima
TOTALS
Legislative District 29
Pima
TOTALS
3
836
6
36
977
0
1,026
2,881
20
10,351
22
107
2,749
0
6,316
19,545
109
38,018
188
600
31,822
4
33,525
104,157
88
34,117
198
680
43,649
4
31,722
110,370
2
1,820
1
10
3,851
0
2,342
8,024
90
35,937
199
690
47,500
4
34,064
118,394
69
38,301
287
669
15,790
5
24,476
79,528
69
38,301
287
669
15,790
5
24,476
79,528
92
33,837
416
702
21,210
9
23,302
79,476
92
33,837
416
702
21,210
9
23,302
79,476
59
29,403
142
561
14,903
4
21,581
66,594
59
29,403
142
561
14,903
4
21,581
66,594
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 94 of 164
Page Number 5
STATE OF ARIZONA REGISTRATION REPORT
Report Date/Time: 04/06/2012 11:57 AM
2012 March Voter Registration - March 1, 2012
Compiled and Issued by the Arizona Secretary of State
ACTIVE
Legislative
Legislative District 30
Cochise
Pima
Santa Cruz
TOTALS
STATE TOTALS
Precincts
Democratic
Green
Libertarian
Republican
Americans
Other
TOTAL
18
6,751
23
133
11,821
0
10,654
29,382
80
31,053
148
679
45,669
7
32,480
110,036
4
1,260
10
29
1,165
0
939
3,403
102
39,064
181
841
58,655
7
44,073
142,821
2,240
952,907
4,929
22,530
1,134,094
148
1,037,007
3,151,615
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 95 of 164
Page Number 6
STATE OF ARIZONA REGISTRATION REPORT
Report Date/Time: 04/06/2012 11:57 AM
2012 March Voter Registration - March 1, 2012
Compiled and Issued by the Arizona Secretary of State
INACTIVE
Precincts Date/Period
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
TOTALS:
PERCENTAGES:
Democratic
Green
Libertarian
Republican
Americans
Other
TOTAL
45 G.E. 2010
2,552
7
28
966
*
1,305
4,858
45 PPE 2012
1,841
4
13
730
0
913
3,501
45 MAR 2012
1,843
3
13
734
0
918
3,511
64 G.E. 2010
261
3
6
301
*
325
896
64 PPE 2012
417
4
8
465
0
570
1,464
64 MAR 2012
417
4
8
465
0
570
1,464
85 G.E. 2010
5,223
112
376
3,423
*
6,021
15,155
85 PPE 2012
4,573
111
221
3,021
0
5,750
13,676
85 MAR 2012
4,533
114
222
2,901
0
5,774
13,544
39 G.E. 2010
1,305
7
18
865
*
902
3,097
39 PPE 2012
1,124
5
16
722
0
783
2,650
39 MAR 2012
1,076
5
15
678
0
738
2,512
18 G.E. 2010
649
2
10
629
*
469
1,759
19 PPE 2012
593
2
12
670
0
463
1,740
19 MAR 2012
586
2
11
628
0
459
1,686
8 G.E. 2010
244
0
2
160
*
136
542
8 PPE 2012
138
0
2
90
0
105
335
8 MAR 2012
135
0
2
90
0
104
331
12 G.E. 2010
398
4
10
389
*
432
1,233
823
12 PPE 2012
242
2
7
248
0
324
12 MAR 2012
240
1
7
239
0
316
803
1,142 G.E. 2010
57,158
321
2,296
50,523
*
71,740
182,038
1,142 PPE 2012
70,816
412
3,064
53,853
1
93,911
222,057
1,142 MAR 2012
71,573
435
3,098
54,143
1
94,929
224,179
73 G.E. 2010
3,997
6
40
4,667
*
3,310
12,020
73 PPE 2012
4,682
30
85
5,933
0
7,448
18,178
73 MAR 2012
4,701
30
84
5,912
0
7,460
18,187
70 G.E. 2010
3,941
16
87
3,889
*
3,418
11,351
70 PPE 2012
2,393
12
57
2,197
0
2,254
6,913
70 MAR 2012
2,332
12
54
2,050
0
2,181
6,629
417 G.E. 2010
28,747
341
849
19,445
*
30,525
79,907
417 PPE 2012
36,452
407
1,162
23,000
0
39,861
100,882
417 MAR 2012
35,700
401
1,131
22,073
0
39,127
98,432
88 G.E. 2010
3,145
9
61
2,462
*
3,546
9,223
88 PPE 2012
7,044
23
122
4,788
0
7,723
19,700
88 MAR 2012
6,896
23
120
4,619
0
7,596
19,254
24 G.E. 2010
1,235
8
23
576
*
817
2,659
24 PPE 2012
791
10
12
291
0
647
1,751
24 MAR 2012
769
10
12
274
0
627
1,692
112 G.E. 2010
4,200
74
273
5,408
*
6,533
16,488
112 PPE 2012
3,738
64
180
4,622
1
6,728
15,333
112 MAR 2012
3,648
67
174
5,072
1
6,600
15,562
42 G.E. 2010
5,404
16
102
5,149
*
4,428
15,099
42 PPE 2012
3,933
18
123
3,984
0
5,933
13,991
42 MAR 2012
3,832
17
120
3,784
0
5,835
13,588
2,239 G.E. 2010
118,459
926
4,181
98,852
*
133,907
356,325
2,240 PPE 2012
138,777
1,104
5,084
104,614
2
173,413
422,994
2,240 MAR 2012
138,281
1,124
5,071
103,662
2
173,234
421,374
G.E. 2010
33.24
0.26
1.17
27.74
*
37.58
PPE 2012
32.81
0.26
1.20
24.73
0.00
41.00
MAR 2012
32.82
0.27
1.20
24.60
0.00
41.11
* - Party was not a recognized party during this cycle
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 96 of 164
Page Number 7
STATE OF ARIZONA REGISTRATION REPORT
Report Date/Time: 04/06/2012 11:57 AM
2012 March Voter Registration - March 1, 2012
Compiled and Issued by the Arizona Secretary of State
INACTIVE
Congressional
Congressional District 1
Apache
Precincts
Democratic
Green
Libertarian
Republican
Americans
Other
TOTAL
45
1,843
3
13
734
0
918
3,511
Coconino
78
4,510
114
220
2,896
0
5,762
13,502
Gila
39
1,076
5
15
678
0
738
2,512
Graham
19
586
2
11
628
0
459
1,686
Greenlee
8
135
0
2
90
0
104
331
52
2,226
11
47
2,016
0
2,078
6,378
Navajo
Pinal
42
3,718
8
40
1,766
0
3,276
8,808
Yavapai
110
3,648
67
174
5,072
1
6,600
15,562
TOTALS
393
17,742
210
522
13,880
1
19,935
52,290
7
23
0
2
5
0
12
42
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
4
Maricopa
214
10,251
57
299
10,411
0
14,450
35,468
Mohave
73
4,701
30
84
5,912
0
7,460
18,187
Navajo
18
106
1
7
34
0
103
251
Yavapai
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
315
15,082
88
392
16,364
0
22,026
53,952
249
19,382
101
870
19,006
0
29,158
68,517
249
19,382
101
870
19,006
0
29,158
68,517
163
21,430
117
1,130
7,414
0
22,959
53,050
163
21,430
117
1,130
7,414
0
22,959
53,050
248
12,000
121
508
9,715
1
16,490
38,835
248
12,000
121
508
9,715
1
16,490
38,835
230
5,236
26
152
6,163
0
7,969
19,546
29
2,053
13
65
2,023
0
3,056
7,210
259
7,289
39
217
8,186
0
11,025
26,756
Congressional District 2
Coconino
La Paz
Congressional District 3
Maricopa
TOTALS
Congressional District 4
Maricopa
TOTALS
Congressional District 5
Maricopa
TOTALS
Congressional District 6
Maricopa
Pinal
TOTALS
Congressional District 7
La Paz
11
239
1
7
237
0
315
799
38
3,274
13
139
1,434
0
3,903
8,763
Pima
136
15,556
179
498
5,683
0
14,907
36,823
Pinal
15
1,045
2
13
683
0
1,159
2,902
Santa Cruz
19
679
2
11
220
0
552
1,464
Maricopa
Yuma
TOTALS
Congressional District 8
Cochise
42
3,832
17
120
3,784
0
5,835
13,588
261
24,625
214
788
12,041
0
26,671
64,339
64
417
4
8
465
0
570
1,464
Pima
281
20,144
222
633
16,390
0
24,220
61,609
Pinal
2
80
0
2
147
0
105
334
Santa Cruz
5
90
8
1
54
0
75
228
352
20,731
234
644
17,056
0
24,970
63,635
2,240
138,281
1,124
5,071
103,662
2
173,234
421,374
TOTALS
STATE TOTALS
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 97 of 164
Page Number 8
STATE OF ARIZONA REGISTRATION REPORT
Report Date/Time: 04/06/2012 11:57 AM
2012 March Voter Registration - March 1, 2012
Compiled and Issued by the Arizona Secretary of State
INACTIVE
Legislative
Legislative District 1
Coconino
Precincts
Democratic
Green
Libertarian
Republican
Americans
Other
TOTAL
22
732
31
45
865
0
1,000
2,673
Yavapai
88
3,389
59
158
4,585
1
6,075
14,267
TOTALS
110
4,121
90
203
5,450
1
7,075
16,940
32
1,473
3
8
322
0
526
2,332
56
3,628
81
172
1,840
0
4,479
10,200
Legislative District 2
Apache
Coconino
Mohave
1
41
0
0
7
0
40
88
Navajo
37
797
5
16
163
0
413
1,394
Yavapai
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
127
5,939
89
196
2,332
0
5,458
14,014
671
Legislative District 3
Coconino
6
173
2
5
196
0
295
La Paz
5
101
1
4
123
0
135
364
Mohave
72
4,660
30
84
5,905
0
7,420
18,099
TOTALS
83
4,934
33
93
6,224
0
7,850
19,134
10,536
Legislative District 4
Maricopa
80
2,626
16
71
3,839
0
3,984
Yavapai
23
259
8
16
487
0
525
1,295
TOTALS
103
2,885
24
87
4,326
0
4,509
11,831
13
370
0
5
412
0
392
1,179
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gila
37
1,049
5
15
675
0
736
2,480
Graham
19
586
2
11
628
0
459
1,686
Greenlee
8
135
0
2
90
0
104
331
33
1,535
7
38
1,887
0
1,768
5,235
Legislative District 5
Apache
Coconino
Navajo
Pinal
TOTALS
Legislative District 6
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 7
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 8
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 9
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 10
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 11
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 12
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 13
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 14
Maricopa
TOTALS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
3,675
14
71
3,692
0
3,459
10,911
67
5,334
30
239
6,005
0
9,079
20,687
67
5,334
30
239
6,005
0
9,079
20,687
59
3,999
27
175
5,318
0
6,991
16,510
59
3,999
27
175
5,318
0
6,991
16,510
76
2,261
17
74
2,866
0
3,561
8,779
76
2,261
17
74
2,866
0
3,561
8,779
60
1,187
8
44
1,177
0
1,388
3,804
60
1,187
8
44
1,177
0
1,388
3,804
56
4,635
23
210
3,403
0
6,636
14,907
56
4,635
23
210
3,403
0
6,636
14,907
83
5,186
30
199
4,576
0
6,350
16,341
83
5,186
30
199
4,576
0
6,350
16,341
78
7,170
32
251
5,854
0
9,950
23,257
78
7,170
32
251
5,854
0
9,950
23,257
44
4,646
15
329
1,633
0
5,304
11,927
44
4,646
15
329
1,633
0
5,304
11,927
38
4,119
21
275
1,487
0
4,782
10,684
38
4,119
21
275
1,487
0
4,782
10,684
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 98 of 164
Page Number 9
STATE OF ARIZONA REGISTRATION REPORT
Report Date/Time: 04/06/2012 11:57 AM
2012 March Voter Registration - March 1, 2012
Compiled and Issued by the Arizona Secretary of State
INACTIVE
Legislative
Legislative District 15
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 16
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 17
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 18
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 19
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 20
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 21
Maricopa
TOTALS
Legislative District 22
Maricopa
Pinal
TOTALS
Legislative District 23
Gila
Precincts
Democratic
Green
Libertarian
Republican
Americans
Other
TOTAL
48
7,121
61
337
2,843
0
8,026
18,388
48
7,121
61
337
2,843
0
8,026
18,388
45
8,251
28
303
2,487
0
8,110
19,179
45
8,251
28
303
2,487
0
8,110
19,179
69
3,848
47
213
2,120
1
4,819
11,048
69
3,848
47
213
2,120
1
4,819
11,048
51
1,456
19
54
1,091
0
2,283
4,903
51
1,456
19
54
1,091
0
2,283
4,903
65
903
4
30
1,282
0
1,519
3,738
65
903
4
30
1,282
0
1,519
3,738
59
4,297
38
150
3,529
0
5,773
13,787
59
4,297
38
150
3,529
0
5,773
13,787
79
2,572
13
78
2,571
0
3,632
8,866
79
2,572
13
78
2,571
0
3,632
8,866
62
1,233
5
39
1,744
0
1,891
4,912
8
442
0
13
436
0
656
1,547
70
1,675
5
52
2,180
0
2,547
6,459
2
27
0
0
3
0
2
32
Maricopa
12
665
1
21
264
0
771
1,722
Pinal
75
6,236
23
102
3,927
0
6,666
16,954
TOTALS
89
6,928
24
123
4,194
0
7,439
18,708
Legislative District 24
La Paz
7
139
0
3
116
0
181
439
Yuma
42
3,832
17
120
3,784
0
5,835
13,588
TOTALS
49
3,971
17
123
3,900
0
6,016
14,027
911
Legislative District 25
Cochise
46
286
2
5
283
0
335
Maricopa
11
64
0
6
54
0
80
204
Pima
29
1,363
11
48
1,272
0
1,716
4,410
Pinal
Santa Cruz
TOTALS
Legislative District 26
Pima
Pinal
TOTALS
Legislative District 27
Pima
TOTALS
Legislative District 28
Pima
TOTALS
Legislative District 29
Pima
TOTALS
3
138
0
3
109
0
169
419
20
680
2
11
220
0
553
1,466
109
2,531
15
73
1,938
0
2,853
7,410
88
4,988
51
146
4,535
0
5,970
15,690
2
80
0
2
147
0
105
334
90
5,068
51
148
4,682
0
6,075
16,024
69
8,398
99
277
3,320
0
7,932
20,026
69
8,398
99
277
3,320
0
7,932
20,026
92
9,634
151
337
4,800
0
10,225
25,147
92
9,634
151
337
4,800
0
10,225
25,147
59
7,068
53
195
3,004
0
7,428
17,748
59
7,068
53
195
3,004
0
7,428
17,748
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 99 of 164
Page Number 10
STATE OF ARIZONA REGISTRATION REPORT
Report Date/Time: 04/06/2012 11:57 AM
2012 March Voter Registration - March 1, 2012
Compiled and Issued by the Arizona Secretary of State
INACTIVE
Legislative
Legislative District 30
Cochise
Pima
Santa Cruz
TOTALS
STATE TOTALS
Precincts
Democratic
Green
Libertarian
Republican
Americans
Other
TOTAL
18
131
2
3
182
0
235
553
80
4,249
36
128
5,142
0
5,856
15,411
4
89
8
1
54
0
74
226
102
4,469
46
132
5,378
0
6,165
16,190
2,240
138,281
1,124
5,071
103,662
2
173,234
421,374
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 100 of 164
EXHIBIT 9
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 101 of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 102 of 164
EXHIBIT 10
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 103 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Friday, December 16, 2011
4:08 p.m.
Location
Fiesta Resort – Fiesta I Ballroom
2100 South Priest Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282
Attending
Colleen C. Mathis, Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Scott Day Freeman, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Richard Stertz (via teleconference)
Ray Bladine, Executive Director
Buck Forst, Information Technology Specialist
Kristina Gomez, Deputy Executive Director
Stu Robinson, Public Information Officer
Mary O'Grady, Legal Counsel
Joe Kanefield, Legal Counsel
Bruce Adelson, Legal Counsel
Reported By:
Marty Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter #50162
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
144of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 104
1
continue to make it more competitive.
2
anything else to add.
3
4
BRUCE ADELSON:
So I don't have
Madam Chair, may I share
something?
5
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
6
BRUCE ADELSON:
Please.
It's something we've just been
7
talking about, and something that we just frankly just
8
occurred to us.
9
District 8, as we're talking about, excuse me,
10
with the change we're talking about it having now a total
11
minority population of 48.3 percent.
12
about and kicking around here is if that minority population
13
was increased a little bit, we might be able to present this
14
to Justice as an eleventh opportunity to elect district, not
15
a majority-minority district.
16
We were wondering
The reason that we're kicking this around is that
17
we have certain numerical non-matchups with the benchmark,
18
some of which probably we're not going to be able to resolve
19
completely.
20
But the thought that we had was if this district
21
could be enhanced so that if we can present a reasonable
22
argument to Justice that minorities over the next decade
23
could have an opportunity to elect beyond the benchmark,
24
that would help with the submission.
25
So we just toss that, that idea out to the
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
145of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 105
1
Commission.
2
3
It's just something that we just started talking
about.
4
5
But it might, it would help with the submission.
There's no question about that.
6
It might offset the numerical issues.
So it's
7
just an idea that we just thought of that we wanted to
8
present to the Commission.
9
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Thank you.
10
Well, it sounds like something we should explore.
11
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
12
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
13
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
I agree.
14
I think it's
something we should explore.
15
And I am going to thank Commissioner McNulty for
16
looking at ways to not only improve the maps but looking at
17
ways that we can help protect the voting rights of the
18
minority folks that are protected by the Section 5 of the
19
Voting Rights Act.
20
So thank you.
21
And I think we can -- hopefully can look at
22
further and see if it's a possibility, so I'm excited.
23
WILLIE DESMOND:
Okay.
So the map that they're
24
referencing is this change to 8 and 11, version four, that
25
we have.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
166of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 106
1
benchmark, we thought it would be helpful to look at.
2
BRUCE ADELSON:
Madam Chair, I certainly agree.
3
think that the -- this is not -- Arizona does not have
4
11 districts as a benchmark.
5
I
Arizona has 10.
What is very significant and what we've been
6
talking a lot about among the three of us is that if we can
7
present a district and make a plausible argument that
8
minorities have an opportunity to elect beyond what they
9
have now, and that's going beyond matching up benchmark
10
numbers with district numbers, that's a very significant
11
step.
12
And looking at the working District 8 as it has
13
been discussed tonight and comparing that to benchmark 23,
14
many of the indicators are better than benchmark 23.
15
16
17
So I certainly concur with Ms. O'Grady about
having this analyzed.
And I really wanted to stress the importance that
18
if the analysis -- and we'll analyze it.
19
Dr. King is going to analyze it.
20
I will analyze it.
And if it comes back as presenting a plausible
21
argument that minorities have an ability to elect, I think
22
that's huge.
23
24
25
And I really cannot understate the importance of
that for the submission.
Because by being able to make a plausible argument
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
167of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 107
1
to Justice that we've gone beyond the benchmark when we
2
didn't have to in a way that makes sense.
3
4
And the metrics do seem to measure up, just
looking at it now.
5
I think that would be extremely significant.
6
So I certainly endorse respectfully what
7
Ms. O'Grady said about having this go to the next stage to
8
see how it's viewed as far as effectiveness.
9
Thank you.
10
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Thank you.
11
Any comments?
12
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
13
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
14
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
I had asked if it was
15
possible to have someone, someone from the Navajo Nation
16
that is here speak on behalf of any changes that we're
17
proposing to the Navajo Nation.
18
them.
19
20
21
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
I would love to hear from
We can do that now.
It would
make sense probably.
We've got some -- I only have three request to
22
speak forms, and we are talking about majority-minority
23
districts now with Mr. Adelson.
24
25
Can I ask Judy Dworkin to come up and talk to us,
representing Navajo Nation.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
202of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 108
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
2
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
)
)
)
ss.
3
4
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceeding was
5
taken before me, Marty Herder, a Certified Court Reporter,
6
CCR No. 50162, State of Arizona; that the foregoing
7
201 pages constitute a true and accurate transcript of all
8
proceedings had upon the taking of said meeting, all done to
9
the best of my skill and ability.
10
11
12
DATED at Chandler, Arizona, this 22nd day of
December, 2011.
13
14
15
__________________________
C. Martin Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter
Certificate No. 50162
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 109 of 164
EXHIBIT 11
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 110 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Scott Day Freeman, Vice Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Richard P. Stertz, Commissioner
Colleen Coyle Mathis, Chair
Notice is hereby given to the members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
and to the general public that the Commission will hold a meeting open to the public at the
time and location listed below for the purpose of hearing Citizen Comments and discussing
and acting on the items listed below:
Location:
Crowne Plaza Phoenix Airport – Desert 12
4300 East Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Date:
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Time:
2:30 P.M.
The Commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public,
for any item listed on the agenda, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice (A.R.S. §38431.03 (A) (3)and (4)). One or more of the members may participate via telephone or video
conferencing.
All matters on the agenda may be discussed, considered and are subject to action by the
Commission.
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
I.
Call to Order.
II.
Presentation on the draft Congressional and Legislative maps by members of
the Arizona State Legislature. (50 minutes)
III.
Discussion, direction to mapping consultant and possible action regarding
adjustments to draft Congressional districts and possible action regarding
adoption and certification of final congressional districts. (Estimated Time 60
minutes)
1
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 111 of 164
IV.
Discussion, direction to mapping consultant and possible action regarding
adjustments to draft Legislative districts and possible action regarding
adoption and certification of final legislative districts. (Estimated Time 60
minutes)
V.
The Executive Director will summarize recent staff activities and respond to
questions by the Commission. (30 minutes)
Budget and Expenditure Update
Public Input Statistics
VI.
Review and discussion of possible future agenda items. (15 minutes)
VII.
Legal advice, direction to counsel, discussion, possible action and update
regarding litigation on open meeting law. The Commission may vote to go
into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of
obtaining legal advice and providing direction to counsel (A.R.S. §38-431.03
(A) (3) and (4)). (Estimated Time 20 minutes)
VIII.
Call for Public Comment. This is the time for the public to comment on items
on the agenda or redistricting maps. Members of the Commission may not
discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore,
pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.01(H), action taken as a result of public comment
on matters not on the agenda will be limited to directing staff to study the
matter, responding to any criticism or scheduling the matter for further
consideration and decision at a later date. (Estimated Time 30 minutes).
IX.
Adjournment.
A copy of the agenda provided to Commission members (with the exception of
material relating to possible executive sessions) is available for public inspection at
the Arizona Independent Commission’s office, 1100 W. Washington St. (The Evans
House) Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
Dated this 2nd day of December 2, 2011
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Colleen Coyle Mathis,
Chairman, by:
Raymond F. Bladine, Executive Director
2
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 112 of 164
Any person with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation, such as sign language
interpreter, by contacting 602-542-5221. Requests should be made as early as possible to
allow time to arrange accommodations.
3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 113 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
2:33 p.m.
Location
Crowne Plaza Phoenix Airport – Desert 12
4300 East Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
Attending
Colleen C. Mathis, Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Scott Day Freeman, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Richard P. Stertz, Commissioner
Ray Bladine, Executive Director
Buck Forst, Information Technology Specialist
Kristina Gomez, Deputy Executive Director
Stu Robinson, Public Information Officer
Mary O'Grady, Legal Counsel
Joe Kanefield, Legal Counsel
Kristin Windtberg, Legal Counsel
Reported By:
Marty Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter #50162
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1144of 164
1
by members of the Arizona state legislature.
2
And so I believe we have two coming up.
3
So our first will be Senator Andy Biggs, who will
4
present the majority report.
5
SENATOR ANDY BIGGS:
6
and members.
7
today.
8
9
10
Good afternoon, Madam Chair
Appreciate the opportunity to be here with you
I'm grateful that you've given us this time for me
to report my colleague Representative Chad Campbell.
Also want to comment just briefly on your
11
director, Ray Bladine, and his staff.
12
cooperative and very helpful, and so I want to tip my hat to
13
them and express my appreciation to them as we go forward.
14
I would be remiss not to do that.
15
They've been always
As you know, the constitution allows the
16
legislature to review and have input with regard to the
17
maps, and it requires that IRC to consider the input of the
18
legislature regarding the maps and the process.
19
And so in order to fill our responsibility, in
20
October the legislature formed a joint legislative committee
21
to review the draft maps.
22
we had expert witnesses come in as well.
And we took public testimony, and
23
And we wanted to get input.
24
And so we then on October 28th produced a report,
25
and it's my understanding that it has been distributed to
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1155of 164
1
each of you, and I, and I hope that's the case.
2
And then we proceeded to do memorials in the
3
house, and then it's my understanding that the, the -- Chad
4
Campbell and the minority and the legislature put out a
5
minority report.
6
So now I'm going to report on that.
7
And I would just want to clarify.
It looks like
8
you've allotted 50 minutes, Madam Chair, and so I'm assuming
9
that we're each going to get roughly 25 minutes; is that
10
accurate?
11
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
12
need to go over, that's fine.
13
problem.
14
15
16
SENATOR ANDY BIGGS:
That's accurate, but if you
We can go longer.
It's no
Well, Madam Chair, thank you
so much.
As Mr. Campbell will no doubt tell you, as a
17
lawyer and a legislature and politician, you know, with a
18
microphone, I'm liable to just go until you drag me out with
19
a cane, so I'm grateful for that opportunity.
20
So, let me just commence by saying our conclusion
21
was that we felt there was some constitutional deficiencies
22
in the maps and how they were put together.
23
we were concerned initially because there are a set of
24
criterion within the state constitution that the IRC is
25
required to follow.
In particular,
And the first one, of course, is to
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
31of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 116
1
2
SENATOR ANDY BIGGS:
terrific.
3
I thank you.
They were
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
So, our next speaker is -- I
4
want to get that title correct -- House Minority Leader Chad
5
Campbell.
6
7
REPRESENTATIVE CHAD CAMPBELL:
Hello, members.
Thank you for having me today.
8
9
And he'll be presenting the minority report.
I want to echo some of the comments of my
colleague, Senator Biggs.
10
First of all, the staff has been amazing, working
11
with them to the limited degree that I have worked with them
12
and contacted them when I needed information.
13
some of our staff as well has contacted them.
14
And I know
And they've been very professional, very
15
responsive, and I can't thank them enough for all the work
16
they've done.
17
18
And I also want to thank all of you for the work
you're doing.
19
20
21
I think you guys have probably not been commended
enough.
You are citizen volunteers.
22
out of your busy lives.
23
You have families, family commitments.
24
25
You're taking time
I know many of you have other jobs.
This is a very time consuming, and I think a very
draining process in many ways.
So I want to commend all of
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
32of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 117
1
you.
2
Thank you for your work, because it really does
3
mean a lot to voters of this state and to the future of this
4
state.
5
You guys are setting forth the maps for the next
6
decade, and the importance of that cannot be understated, so
7
thank you very much for your work.
8
9
And I want to say from the outset that I think
you've done a very good job to this point.
I think you
10
have followed the constitution and the intent of
11
Proposition 106.
12
And when I'm out around the state talking to
13
people across the state, Republicans, Democrats, and
14
Independents alike, I can assure you there are many people
15
out there who support what you've done and commend you for
16
your efforts.
17
And I know you guys probably hear a lot of
18
negativity at these meetings sometimes, so I want to pass
19
that along to you, that there are a lot of people out there
20
who support the work you're working on and really appreciate
21
all the time and effort you put into this.
22
So I'm going to briefly talk about the minority
23
report that we submitted.
24
assume; correct?
25
You all have a copy of it, I
Okay.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
99of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 118
1
here all night.
2
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
3
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
4
No, but I will make a
comment.
5
6
Are they any other questions?
The district the Mr. Stertz has referred to has
about a 40 percent Republican registration, not 97 percent.
7
So, I just want to make that clear.
8
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
9
comments?
10
11
Any other questions or
Representative Campbell, thank you very much for
coming.
12
And Senator Biggs as well.
13
I'm not sure how the last Commission did this in
14
terms of accepting the report from the legislature, if they
15
had a presentation, but I personally appreciate you guys
16
coming down and doing this, because it's much more
17
interesting to hear from you directly and in person as
18
opposed to just reading the report.
19
anything away from the report, or whoever wrote that.
20
hope you'll extend our gratitude to your colleagues and
21
ensure that they know that we'll be taking this into
22
consideration, both those reports.
23
24
25
And not to take
REPRESENTATIVE CHAD CAMPBELL:
I will.
Thank you
very much.
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
And I
Thank you.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
147of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 119
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
2
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
)
)
)
ss.
3
4
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceeding was
5
taken before me, Marty Herder, a Certified Court Reporter,
6
CCR No. 50162, State of Arizona; that the foregoing
7
146 pages constitute a true and accurate transcript of all
8
proceedings had upon the taking of said meeting, all done to
9
the best of my skill and ability.
10
11
DATED at Chandler, Arizona, this 12th day of
December, 2011.
12
13
__________________________
14
C. Martin Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter
Certificate No. 50162
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 120 of 164
EXHIBIT 12
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 121 of 164
Final Legislative Districts - Approved 1/17/12
DISTRICT COUNTY
1 Yavapai
1 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
70.30%
70.58%
9.59%
1.80%
29.42%
7.35%
DISTRICT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
100.00%
20.24%
7.09%
100.00%
17.32%
13.40%
89.50%
14.08%
8.18%
100.00%
4.90%
11.50%
100.00%
2.75%
3.38%
100.00%
2.33%
18.81%
100.00%
1.82%
8.29%
100.00%
1.41%
4.59%
100.00%
1.25%
6.28%
100.00%
1.03%
7.59%
100.00%
0.74%
20.16%
100.00%
0.73%
5.10%
100.00%
0.57%
6.86%
100.00%
0.44%
7.56%
100.00%
0.36%
5.61%
100.00%
0.24%
7.43%
100.00%
0.21%
18.06%
100.00%
0.17%
34.72%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PLACE
Yavapai - Prescott
Yavapai - Prescott Valley
Yavapai - non-Census Place
Yavapai - Chino Valley
Yavapai - Williamson
Yavapai - Paulden
Yavapai - Dewey-Humboldt
Yavapai - Black Canyon City
Yavapai - Cordes Lakes
Yavapai - Congress
Yavapai - Bagdad
Yavapai - Mayer
Yavapai - Spring Valley
Yavapai - Wilhoit
Yavapai - Yarnell
Yavapai - Peeples Valley
Yavapai - Seligman
Yavapai - Ash Fork
Yavapai - Peoria
Yavapai - Wickenburg
Yavapai - Camp Verde
Maricopa - Phoenix
Maricopa - Anthem
Maricopa - New River
Maricopa - Cave Creek
Maricopa - Carefree
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Peoria
1.50%
100.00%
100.00%
97.50%
100.00%
1.10%
0.00%
9.01%
8.55%
6.88%
2.41%
1.78%
0.80%
0.00%
9.86%
7.59%
5.43%
6.77%
2.31%
5.88%
DISTRICT COUNTY
2 Santa Cruz
2 Pima
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
100.00%
22.06%
78.16%
15.40%
77.94%
45.64%
DISTRICT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
13.30%
35.69%
63.58%
100.00%
14.10%
4.20%
100.00%
11.91%
26.91%
31.60%
9.94%
47.32%
100.00%
2.66%
75.54%
100.00%
2.34%
74.89%
100.00%
0.50%
62.25%
PLACE
Pima - Tucson
Pima - Green Valley
Pima - Sahuarita
Pima - non-Census Place
Pima - South Tucson
Pima - Summit
Pima - Arivaca Junction
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 122 of 164
2 Pima - Arivaca
2 Pima - Littletown
2 Pima - Three Points
100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.41%
0.38%
0.00%
15.64%
62.12%
DISTRICT COUNTY
3 Pima
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
20.50%
100.00%
50.05%
DISTRICT
3
3
3
3
3
PLACE
Pima - Tucson
Pima - Drexel Heights
Pima - Tucson Estates
Pima - non-Census Place
Pima - Valencia West
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
28.00%
72.13%
51.04%
93.30%
11.67%
64.86%
100.00%
6.42%
25.53%
18.90%
5.71%
28.43%
100.00%
4.07%
59.10%
DISTRICT
4
4
4
4
COUNTY
Yuma
Maricopa
Pima
Pinal
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
53.60%
53.25%
71.90%
1.50%
30.42%
34.76%
3.00%
16.09%
42.48%
0.10%
0.24%
5.83%
DISTRICT
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
PLACE
Yuma - Yuma
Yuma - San Luis
Yuma - Somerton
Yuma - non-Census Place
Yuma - Avenue B and C
Yuma - Donovan Estates
Yuma - Gadsden
Yuma - Orange Grove Mobile Manor
Yuma - Rancho Mesa Verde
Yuma - Wall Lane
Yuma - Drysdale
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
56.80%
26.86%
56.49%
100.00%
11.37%
98.50%
100.00%
6.25%
94.95%
41.40%
4.78%
58.09%
100.00%
2.05%
68.01%
100.00%
0.69%
91.83%
100.00%
0.34%
95.82%
100.00%
0.31%
98.38%
100.00%
0.28%
97.73%
100.00%
0.19%
81.39%
100.00%
0.13%
89.25%
4
4
4
4
4
Pinal - Chuichu
Pinal - Vaiva Vo
Pinal - non-Census Place
Pinal - Kohatk
Pinal - Tat Momoli
100.00%
100.00%
0.20%
100.00%
100.00%
0.12%
0.05%
0.05%
0.01%
0.00%
7.10%
1.30%
9.59%
0.00%
0.00%
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Pima - Tucson
Pima - Three Points
Pima - non-Census Place
Pima - Ajo
Pima - Sells
Pima - Drexel Heights
Pima - Santa Rosa
Pima - Pisinemo
Pima - Topawa
Pima - Why
Pima - Gu Oidak
1.80%
100.00%
7.30%
100.00%
100.00%
6.70%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
5.14%
3.00%
2.40%
1.90%
1.16%
0.91%
0.31%
0.15%
0.15%
0.11%
0.10%
74.63%
33.36%
22.93%
34.23%
5.06%
73.47%
1.81%
4.59%
3.23%
13.84%
1.45%
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 123 of 164
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Pima - San Miguel
Pima - Ali Chuk
Pima - Maish Vaya
Pima - Anegam
Pima - Cowlic
Pima - Ali Chukson
Pima - South Komelik
Pima - Wahak Hotrontk
Pima - Haivana Nakya
Pima - Chiawuli Tak
Pima - Ali Molina
Pima - Charco
Pima - Ko Vaya
Pima - Ventana
Pima - Nolic
Pima - Ak Chin
Pima - Comobabi
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0.09%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.05%
0.04%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
5.56%
10.38%
0.96%
5.26%
0.00%
0.00%
7.69%
6.49%
0.00%
0.00%
2.17%
13.16%
9.09%
3.57%
4.76%
4.76%
0.00%
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Maricopa - Goodyear
Maricopa - Buckeye
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Gila Bend
Maricopa - Arlington
Maricopa - Theba
Maricopa - Kaka
50.50%
33.10%
4.70%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
16.99%
8.26%
3.98%
0.96%
0.10%
0.07%
0.07%
29.05%
43.16%
35.24%
60.72%
21.53%
95.15%
2.13%
DISTRICT COUNTY
5 La Paz
5 Mohave
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
100.00%
9.62%
18.17%
99.40%
90.38%
12.01%
DISTRICT
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
100.00%
24.68%
9.20%
100.00%
18.20%
18.93%
100.00%
12.33%
10.49%
98.40%
7.21%
12.71%
100.00%
6.57%
12.43%
100.00%
5.41%
9.69%
100.00%
3.97%
8.49%
100.00%
1.13%
16.95%
100.00%
1.12%
9.92%
100.00%
1.03%
6.43%
100.00%
1.02%
8.97%
100.00%
1.01%
0.68%
100.00%
0.89%
19.14%
100.00%
0.83%
4.00%
100.00%
0.72%
31.69%
100.00%
0.65%
3.60%
100.00%
0.53%
9.11%
PLACE
Mohave - Lake Havasu City
Mohave - Bullhead City
Mohave - Kingman
Mohave - non-Census Place
Mohave - Fort Mohave
Mohave - New Kingman-Butler
Mohave - Golden Valley
Mohave - Mohave Valley
Mohave - Desert Hills
Mohave - Golden Shores
Mohave - Dolan Springs
Mohave - Colorado City
Mohave - Beaver Dam
Mohave - Valle Vista
Mohave - Scenic
Mohave - Meadview
Mohave - Willow Valley
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 124 of 164
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Mohave - Arizona Village
Mohave - Centennial Park
Mohave - Walnut Creek
Mohave - So-Hi
Mohave - Mesquite Creek
Mohave - Lazy Y U
Mohave - White Hills
Mohave - Cane Beds
Mohave - Chloride
Mohave - Crystal Beach
Mohave - Littlefield
Mohave - Pinion Pines
Mohave - Clacks Canyon
Mohave - Pine Lake
Mohave - Antares
Mohave - Oatman
Mohave - Yucca
Mohave - Wikieup
Mohave - Truxton
Mohave - Katherine
Mohave - Hackberry
Mohave - McConnico
Mohave - Mojave Ranch Estates
Mohave - Valentine
Mohave - Crozier
Mohave - Topock
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0.38%
0.31%
0.27%
0.24%
0.22%
0.20%
0.17%
0.17%
0.15%
0.13%
0.13%
0.09%
0.08%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.05%
0.04%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
20.55%
5.97%
5.60%
9.98%
9.84%
4.06%
7.56%
2.41%
3.52%
6.14%
29.28%
2.58%
3.52%
4.69%
6.84%
3.45%
10.38%
9.43%
4.12%
5.26%
1.61%
3.39%
45.71%
6.45%
7.14%
0.00%
DISTRICT
6
6
6
6
COUNTY
Coconino
Yavapai
Gila
Navajo
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
74.50%
44.98%
14.52%
29.70%
29.82%
12.77%
55.20%
13.68%
6.05%
26.00%
11.53%
11.96%
DISTRICT
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
PLACE
Yavapai - Cottonwood
Yavapai - Verde Village
Yavapai - Camp Verde
Yavapai - Sedona
Yavapai - Village of Oak Creek (Big Park)
Yavapai - Lake Montezuma
Yavapai - Clarkdale
Yavapai - non-Census Place
Yavapai - Cornville
Yavapai - Jerome
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
100.00%
5.25%
17.65%
100.00%
5.18%
16.68%
100.00%
4.97%
13.27%
100.00%
3.68%
12.25%
100.00%
3.20%
7.32%
100.00%
2.14%
11.14%
100.00%
1.94%
10.51%
10.50%
1.65%
4.75%
100.00%
1.57%
8.91%
100.00%
0.24%
5.62%
6 Navajo - non-Census Place
6 Navajo - Holbrook
6 Navajo - Snowflake
26.40%
100.00%
100.00%
2.42%
2.14%
2.12%
6.35%
23.25%
10.70%
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 125 of 164
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Navajo - Taylor
Navajo - Heber-Overgaard
Navajo - White Mountain Lake
Navajo - Joseph City
Navajo - Pinedale
Navajo - Clay Springs
Navajo - Woodruff
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
1.55%
1.34%
1.01%
0.51%
0.22%
0.15%
0.08%
11.47%
9.74%
12.95%
7.05%
6.28%
5.93%
5.43%
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Gila - Payson
Gila - Star Valley
Gila - Pine
Gila - Tonto Basin
Gila - non-Census Place
Gila - Strawberry
Gila - Mesa del Caballo
Gila - Young
Gila - Gisela
Gila - Round Valley
Gila - Beaver Valley
Gila - Tonto Village
Gila - Deer Creek
Gila - Oxbow Estates
Gila - East Verde Estates
Gila - Christopher Creek
Gila - Whispering Pines
Gila - Freedom Acres
Gila - Jakes Corner
Gila - Washington Park
Gila - Rye
Gila - Geronimo Estates
Gila - Rock House
Gila - Hunter Creek
Gila - Kohls Ranch
Gila - Flowing Springs
Gila - Mead Ranch
Gila - Roosevelt
Gila - Haigler Creek
Gila - Bear Flat
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
44.50%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
7.43%
1.11%
1.04%
0.76%
0.64%
0.51%
0.35%
0.33%
0.26%
0.22%
0.11%
0.11%
0.11%
0.10%
0.09%
0.09%
0.07%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
7.45%
7.48%
2.04%
3.46%
3.56%
2.54%
8.39%
3.60%
4.45%
4.45%
4.19%
5.88%
2.16%
7.60%
1.99%
6.12%
3.51%
1.32%
4.00%
0.00%
11.94%
6.38%
13.04%
2.33%
2.56%
0.00%
6.67%
0.00%
0.00%
5.88%
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Coconino - Flagstaff
Coconino - non-Census Place
Coconino - Doney Park
Coconino - Sedona
Coconino - Williams
Coconino - Kachina Village
Coconino - Grand Canyon Village
Coconino - Parks
Coconino - Mountainaire
100.00%
43.90%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
30.78%
4.49%
2.28%
1.52%
1.32%
1.16%
1.05%
0.58%
0.52%
15.66%
10.08%
10.18%
7.88%
30.65%
10.66%
7.84%
7.01%
6.71%
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 126 of 164
6
6
6
6
DISTRICT
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Coconino - Valle
Coconino - Fort Valley
Coconino - Munds Park
Coconino - Tusayan
COUNTY
Apache
Navajo
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Mohave
Pinal
DISTRICT PLACE
7 Pinal - non-Census Place
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Navajo - non-Census Place
Navajo - Show Low
Navajo - Winslow
Navajo - Pinetop-Lakeside
Navajo - Kayenta
Navajo - Lake of the Woods
Navajo - Whiteriver
Navajo - Linden
Navajo - Pinetop Country Club
Navajo - Wagon Wheel
Navajo - First Mesa
Navajo - Cibecue
Navajo - North Fork
Navajo - Dilkon
Navajo - Hotevilla-Bacavi
Navajo - Second Mesa
Navajo - Rainbow City
Navajo - Pinon
Navajo - Whitecone
Navajo - Kykotsmovi Village
Navajo - Shongopovi
Navajo - Hondah
Navajo - Low Mountain
Navajo - Seven Mile
Navajo - East Fork
Navajo - Shonto
Navajo - Greasewood
Navajo - Tees Toh
Navajo - Chilchinbito
Navajo - Keams Canyon
Navajo - Winslow West
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0.36%
0.33%
0.33%
0.26%
23.58%
5.10%
7.66%
36.24%
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
100.00%
35.08%
5.15%
74.00%
40.13%
8.88%
25.50%
18.81%
3.25%
10.40%
3.16%
2.70%
10.90%
2.08%
2.18%
0.60%
0.74%
3.01%
0.00%
0.00%
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
0.00%
0.00%
73.60%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
8.24%
5.81%
5.12%
2.31%
2.28%
2.17%
1.80%
1.43%
1.06%
0.89%
0.77%
0.76%
0.66%
0.52%
0.48%
0.45%
0.44%
0.42%
0.39%
0.39%
0.37%
0.35%
0.35%
0.32%
0.31%
0.28%
0.25%
0.22%
0.22%
0.15%
0.15%
2.46%
10.29%
31.44%
12.02%
1.51%
15.97%
1.72%
5.21%
7.31%
11.46%
0.56%
1.80%
1.31%
0.96%
2.24%
2.07%
0.81%
2.07%
2.21%
2.60%
1.17%
4.93%
0.21%
2.22%
3.00%
2.84%
1.44%
0.97%
0.33%
1.90%
18.14%
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 127 of 164
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Navajo - Jeddito
Navajo - Sun Valley
Navajo - Turkey Creek
Navajo - Indian Wells
Navajo - Seba Dalkai
Navajo - Fort Apache
Navajo - Oljato-Monument Valley
Navajo - Hard Rock
Navajo - McNary
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0.14%
0.13%
0.13%
0.11%
0.08%
0.08%
0.07%
0.04%
0.00%
2.09%
18.03%
2.22%
3.13%
0.94%
10.38%
3.03%
5.17%
0.00%
7
7
7
7
7
Mohave - Peach Springs
Mohave - non-Census Place
Mohave - Kaibab
Mohave - Moccasin
Mohave - Grand Canyon West
100.00%
1.60%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0.50%
0.14%
0.05%
0.05%
0.00%
2.75%
2.50%
8.33%
1.49%
0.00%
7 Graham - Bylas
7 Graham - non-Census Place
7 Graham - Peridot
100.00%
13.20%
100.00%
0.87%
0.76%
0.44%
1.57%
3.77%
0.65%
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Gila - San Carlos
Gila - Canyon Day
Gila - non-Census Place
Gila - Peridot
Gila - Cedar Creek
Gila - East Globe
Gila - Carrizo
Gila - Cutter
100.00%
100.00%
17.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
1.79%
0.56%
0.30%
0.18%
0.14%
0.10%
0.07%
0.03%
2.21%
1.16%
5.50%
1.20%
3.17%
12.23%
0.00%
12.77%
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Coconino - non-Census Place
Coconino - Tuba City
Coconino - Page
Coconino - Fredonia
Coconino - LeChee
Coconino - Kaibito
Coconino - Moenkopi
Coconino - Leupp
Coconino - Cameron
Coconino - Tonalea
Coconino - Bitter Springs
Coconino - Tolani Lake
Coconino - Supai
Coconino - Winslow West
Coconino - Fort Valley
56.10%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
7.01%
4.05%
3.66%
0.68%
0.66%
0.65%
0.48%
0.45%
0.45%
0.25%
0.21%
0.13%
0.10%
0.03%
0.00%
3.06%
2.34%
6.24%
3.58%
1.19%
1.00%
1.36%
1.43%
2.88%
0.88%
0.34%
1.14%
2.94%
4.17%
DISTRICT COUNTY
8 Pinal
8 Gila
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
50.30%
90.57%
30.98%
34.30%
9.43%
34.50%
DISTRICT PLACE
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 128 of 164
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Pinal - San Tan Valley
Pinal - Casa Grande
Pinal - Florence
Pinal - non-Census Place
Pinal - Eloy
Pinal - Coolidge
Pinal - Oracle
Pinal - San Manuel
Pinal - Superior
Pinal - Sacaton
Pinal - Kearny
Pinal - Mammoth
Pinal - Casa Blanca
Pinal - Queen Valley
Pinal - Blackwater
Pinal - Dudleyville
Pinal - Cactus Forest
Pinal - Stotonic Village
Pinal - Sacaton Flats Village
Pinal - Upper Santan Village
Pinal - Goodyear Village
Pinal - Lower Santan Village
Pinal - Top-of-the-World
Pinal - Wet Camp Village
Pinal - Picacho
Pinal - Sacate Village
Pinal - Campo Bonito
Pinal - Sweet Water Village
Pinal - Santa Cruz
Pinal - Winkelman
Pinal - Hayden
65.30%
78.80%
100.00%
37.90%
97.50%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
44.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
21.82%
18.00%
15.49%
9.83%
8.67%
5.24%
1.87%
1.69%
1.41%
1.11%
0.94%
0.66%
0.59%
0.47%
0.46%
0.46%
0.29%
0.26%
0.23%
0.22%
0.18%
0.16%
0.14%
0.11%
0.10%
0.07%
0.04%
0.03%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
20.80%
33.44%
30.95%
23.13%
53.09%
36.55%
35.36%
43.84%
65.21%
8.56%
36.38%
65.57%
10.89%
5.64%
19.94%
59.24%
16.48%
10.91%
9.47%
4.69%
20.74%
10.04%
13.81%
9.20%
49.69%
19.61%
14.75%
13.73%
6.90%
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Gila - Globe
Gila - Central Heights-Midland City
Gila - Miami
Gila - Claypool
Gila - non-Census Place
Gila - Six Shooter Canyon
Gila - Wheatfields
Gila - Hayden
Gila - Icehouse Canyon
Gila - Pinal
Gila - Winkelman
Gila - Dripping Springs
Gila - Copper Hill
Gila - El Capitan
Gila - Top-of-the-World
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
38.40%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
3.76%
1.24%
0.90%
0.76%
0.62%
0.50%
0.41%
0.32%
0.32%
0.21%
0.18%
0.13%
0.06%
0.02%
0.00%
32.85%
25.07%
52.75%
36.53%
26.67%
21.81%
16.24%
84.01%
20.86%
29.05%
79.64%
46.91%
11.70%
19.44%
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 129 of 164
DISTRICT COUNTY
9 Pima
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
22.80%
100.00%
18.30%
DISTRICT
9
9
9
9
9
9
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
15.90%
36.91%
23.05%
100.00%
30.83%
17.59%
100.00%
24.50%
8.46%
100.00%
7.28%
29.90%
3.20%
0.48%
25.91%
0.00%
0.00%
PLACE
Pima - Tucson
Pima - Casas Adobes
Pima - Catalina Foothills
Pima - Flowing Wells
Pima - Marana
Pima - non-Census Place
DISTRICT COUNTY
10 Pima
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
22.10%
100.00%
19.50%
DISTRICT
10
10
10
10
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
38.10%
91.25%
20.58%
100.00%
8.25%
7.91%
1.80%
0.51%
13.49%
0.00%
0.00%
PLACE
Pima - Tucson
Pima - Tanque Verde
Pima - non-Census Place
Pima - Catalina Foothills
DISTRICT COUNTY
11 Pima
11 Pinal
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
12.00%
56.43%
14.49%
25.30%
43.57%
23.44%
DISTRICT
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
PLACE
Pinal - Maricopa
Pinal - non-Census Place
Pinal - Saddlebrooke
Pinal - Arizona City
Pinal - Casa Grande
Pinal - Red Rock
Pinal - Ak-Chin Village
Pinal - Stanfield
Pinal - Eloy
Pinal - Picacho
Pinal - Marana
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
100.00%
18.31%
20.79%
33.60%
8.36%
36.42%
100.00%
5.70%
3.47%
100.00%
4.80%
27.13%
21.20%
4.62%
26.76%
100.00%
0.85%
24.50%
100.00%
0.31%
22.09%
100.00%
0.29%
61.42%
2.50%
0.22%
44.06%
56.00%
0.13%
63.37%
0.00%
0.00%
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Pima - Oro Valley
Pima - Marana
Pima - non-Census Place
Pima - Picture Rocks
Pima - Catalina
Pima - Avra Valley
Pima - Nelson
Pima - Rillito
Pima - Tucson
DISTRICT COUNTY
12 Maricopa
12 Pinal
100.00%
96.80%
29.70%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
20.67%
15.71%
8.70%
4.62%
3.72%
2.85%
0.12%
0.05%
0.00%
9.35%
18.13%
16.40%
13.86%
19.92%
18.95%
25.13%
39.73%
0.00%
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
5.20%
98.85%
13.76%
0.60%
1.15%
23.57%
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 130 of 164
DISTRICT PLACE
12 Pinal - non-Census Place
12 Pinal - Queen Creek
12
12
12
12
12
Maricopa - Gilbert
Maricopa - Queen Creek
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Mesa
Maricopa - Chandler
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
3.40%
0.93%
26.86%
96.80%
0.22%
9.97%
87.20%
100.00%
5.40%
0.00%
0.00%
83.56%
10.94%
4.35%
0.00%
0.00%
13.19%
15.56%
20.36%
DISTRICT
13
13
13
COUNTY
Maricopa
Yuma
Yavapai
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
3.30%
58.36%
22.67%
46.40%
41.64%
30.72%
0.00%
0.00%
DISTRICT
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
PLACE
Yuma - Yuma
Yuma - Fortuna Foothills
Yuma - non-Census Place
Yuma - Wellton
Yuma - Martinez Lake
Yuma - Tacna
Yuma - El Prado Estates
Yuma - Dateland
Yuma - Wellton Hills
Yuma - Buckshot
Yuma - Padre Ranchitos
Yuma - Aztec
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
43.20%
18.42%
38.77%
100.00%
14.27%
15.06%
58.60%
6.11%
40.89%
100.00%
1.51%
28.20%
100.00%
0.35%
14.29%
100.00%
0.28%
49.19%
100.00%
0.21%
80.42%
100.00%
0.20%
49.84%
100.00%
0.13%
30.46%
100.00%
0.08%
23.81%
100.00%
0.07%
74.11%
100.00%
0.02%
84.00%
13 Yavapai - non-Census Place
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
DISTRICT
14
14
14
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Buckeye
Maricopa - Goodyear
Maricopa - Wickenburg
Maricopa - Litchfield Park
Maricopa - Citrus Park
Maricopa - Glendale
Maricopa - Aguila
Maricopa - Wittmann
Maricopa - Morristown
Maricopa - Wintersburg
Maricopa - Tonopah
Maricopa - Surprise
Maricopa - El Mirage
COUNTY
Cochise
Greenlee
Pima
0.00%
0.00%
23.60%
66.90%
49.50%
100.00%
90.40%
100.00%
1.60%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
17.87%
15.09%
15.06%
3.34%
2.46%
1.89%
1.71%
0.36%
0.33%
0.12%
0.07%
0.03%
0.01%
0.00%
24.86%
29.62%
18.93%
10.25%
9.69%
14.87%
13.71%
64.39%
32.12%
5.38%
18.10%
12.77%
25.00%
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
100.00%
62.02%
27.90%
100.00%
3.66%
44.16%
4.30%
19.75%
16.93%
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 131 of 164
14 Graham
DISTRICT
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
PLACE
Pima - Tucson
Pima - Vail
Pima - non-Census Place
Pima - Corona de Tucson
Pima - Rincon Valley
Pima - Pimaco Two
Pima - Elephant Head
Pima - Summerhaven
Pima - Willow Canyon
Graham - non-Census Place
Graham - Safford
Graham - Thatcher
Graham - Swift Trail Junction
Graham - Pima
Graham - Cactus Flats
Graham - Central
Graham - San Jose
Graham - Solomon
Graham - Fort Thomas
Graham - Bryce
89.10%
14.57%
32.42%
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
2.80%
6.83%
18.39%
100.00%
4.34%
16.05%
10.80%
3.11%
20.45%
100.00%
2.43%
14.76%
100.00%
2.38%
11.71%
100.00%
0.33%
12.52%
100.00%
0.30%
24.49%
100.00%
0.02%
6.06%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
86.80%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
4.29%
4.11%
2.19%
1.49%
0.96%
0.64%
0.25%
0.21%
0.19%
0.18%
0.07%
32.13%
39.34%
20.64%
39.16%
19.33%
26.70%
12.86%
65.90%
75.00%
8.11%
12.26%
DISTRICT COUNTY
15 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
5.80%
100.00%
8.59%
DISTRICT
15
15
15
15
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
15.30%
97.40%
8.69%
3.50%
2.54%
5.13%
2.50%
0.06%
1.94%
0.00%
0.00%
PLACE
Maricopa - Phoenix
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Cave Creek
Maricopa - Glendale
DISTRICT COUNTY
16 Maricopa
16 Pinal
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
3.50%
60.38%
13.64%
23.60%
39.62%
11.90%
DISTRICT
16
16
16
16
16
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
100.00%
17.26%
10.66%
34.70%
10.79%
19.95%
24.90%
6.02%
8.00%
100.00%
5.54%
4.32%
3.20%
0.01%
36.36%
PLACE
Pinal - Apache Junction
Pinal - San Tan Valley
Pinal - non-Census Place
Pinal - Gold Canyon
Pinal - Queen Creek
16 Maricopa - Mesa
16 Maricopa - non-Census Place
16 Maricopa - Apache Junction
DISTRICT COUNTY
17 Maricopa
23.40%
19.60%
100.00%
46.08%
14.13%
0.17%
13.01%
15.84%
2.82%
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
5.80%
100.00%
18.23%
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 132 of 164
DISTRICT
17
17
17
17
PLACE
Maricopa - Chandler
Maricopa - Gilbert
Maricopa - Sun Lakes
Maricopa - non-Census Place
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
74.30%
78.46%
20.81%
12.80%
11.15%
13.23%
100.00%
8.60%
1.76%
2.40%
1.79%
15.37%
DISTRICT COUNTY
18 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
6.00%
100.00%
12.70%
DISTRICT
18
18
18
18
18
18
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
5.60%
34.43%
10.82%
25.70%
26.04%
13.83%
32.10%
25.56%
12.39%
7.10%
13.69%
15.91%
0.40%
0.27%
10.57%
0.00%
0.00%
PLACE
Maricopa - Phoenix
Maricopa - Chandler
Maricopa - Tempe
Maricopa - Mesa
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Guadalupe
DISTRICT COUNTY
19 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
4.80%
100.00%
60.37%
DISTRICT
19
19
19
19
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
7.30%
56.55%
69.38%
100.00%
38.49%
45.89%
100.00%
3.16%
77.65%
2.00%
1.81%
56.49%
PLACE
Maricopa - Phoenix
Maricopa - Avondale
Maricopa - Tolleson
Maricopa - non-Census Place
DISTRICT COUNTY
20 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
5.90%
100.00%
17.70%
DISTRICT PLACE
20 Maricopa - Phoenix
20 Maricopa - Glendale
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
11.60%
72.11%
17.84%
28.50%
27.89%
17.32%
DISTRICT COUNTY
21 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
5.90%
100.00%
19.69%
DISTRICT
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
62.00%
42.92%
20.46%
100.00%
22.57%
2.58%
36.30%
18.83%
22.04%
100.00%
12.46%
43.11%
100.00%
2.79%
26.71%
0.60%
0.44%
13.49%
0.00%
0.00%
PLACE
Maricopa - Peoria
Maricopa - Sun City
Maricopa - Surprise
Maricopa - El Mirage
Maricopa - Youngtown
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Glendale
DISTRICT COUNTY
22 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
6.00%
100.00%
8.17%
DISTRICT PLACE
22 Maricopa - Surprise
22 Maricopa - Peoria
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
63.70%
32.42%
10.89%
38.00%
25.82%
7.64%
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 133 of 164
22
22
22
22
Maricopa - Glendale
Maricopa - Sun City West
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Phoenix
21.50%
100.00%
8.70%
0.00%
20.96%
14.60%
6.19%
0.00%
8.47%
1.18%
11.67%
DISTRICT COUNTY
23 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
6.30%
100.00%
4.90%
DISTRICT
23
23
23
23
23
23
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
84.50%
85.69%
5.12%
100.00%
10.93%
3.33%
3.50%
2.35%
5.95%
100.00%
1.03%
0.44%
0.30%
0.01%
3.85%
0.00%
0.00%
PLACE
Maricopa - Scottsdale
Maricopa - Fountain Hills
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Rio Verde
Maricopa - Paradise Valley
Maricopa - Phoenix
DISTRICT COUNTY
24 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
5.60%
100.00%
34.10%
DISTRICT
24
24
24
24
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
12.60%
82.43%
37.23%
15.50%
17.57%
19.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
PLACE
Maricopa - Phoenix
Maricopa - Scottsdale
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Tempe
DISTRICT COUNTY
25 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
6.00%
100.00%
15.63%
DISTRICT PLACE
25 Maricopa - Mesa
25 Maricopa - non-Census Place
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
48.20%
92.99%
16.34%
9.90%
7.01%
6.20%
DISTRICT COUNTY
26 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
5.90%
100.00%
31.95%
DISTRICT
26
26
26
26
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
63.90%
52.30%
20.06%
21.20%
41.67%
45.90%
0.50%
3.34%
60.63%
3.70%
2.70%
11.54%
PLACE
Maricopa - Tempe
Maricopa - Mesa
Maricopa - Phoenix
Maricopa - non-Census Place
DISTRICT COUNTY
27 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
5.00%
100.00%
52.06%
DISTRICT
27
27
27
27
27
27
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
12.20%
89.89%
53.54%
4.00%
3.80%
29.14%
3.10%
2.66%
41.19%
100.00%
2.52%
63.43%
100.00%
0.33%
16.31%
100.00%
0.33%
10.85%
PLACE
Maricopa - Phoenix
Maricopa - Tempe
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Guadalupe
Maricopa - Komatke
Maricopa - Maricopa Colony
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 134 of 164
27 Maricopa - Gila Crossing
27 Maricopa - St. Johns
100.00%
100.00%
0.26%
0.22%
12.95%
2.61%
DISTRICT COUNTY
28 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
6.00%
100.00%
17.74%
DISTRICT
28
28
28
28
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
15.40%
93.96%
18.67%
99.70%
5.85%
3.21%
0.30%
0.19%
3.08%
0.00%
0.00%
PLACE
Maricopa - Phoenix
Maricopa - Paradise Valley
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Scottsdale
DISTRICT COUNTY
29 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
4.80%
100.00%
61.90%
DISTRICT
29
29
29
29
29
29
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
7.80%
59.88%
69.95%
27.70%
33.35%
54.01%
7.40%
6.46%
29.48%
9.60%
0.30%
31.71%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
PLACE
Maricopa - Phoenix
Maricopa - Glendale
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Litchfield Park
Maricopa - El Mirage
Maricopa - Peoria
DISTRICT COUNTY
30 Maricopa
% OF COUNTY VAP % OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
5.00%
100.00%
50.74%
DISTRICT
30
30
30
30
% OF PLACE VAP
% OF DIST VAP % VA Hisp
10.40%
76.10%
54.51%
20.70%
23.90%
38.71%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
PLACE
Maricopa - Phoenix
Maricopa - Glendale
Maricopa - non-Census Place
Maricopa - Peoria
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 135 of 164
EXHIBIT 13
Some upset with redistricting panel's new legislative lines - East Valley Tribune: Arizona
Page 1 of 3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 136 of 164
Some upset with redistricting panel's new
legislative lines
By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services | Posted: Thursday, December 22, 2011 4:45 pm
The political lines that will govern legislative elections for the coming decade will make some
people happy but more than a few thinking they got the shaft.
In fact, that's precisely the term state Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-Tucson, used to describe
what happened to some of her constituents who now find themselves in a district likely to be
dominated by Pinal County Republicans.
Cajero Bedford is not the only one upset with the final legislative lines adopted late Tuesday by
the Independent Redistricting Commission.
Paradise Valley Mayor Scott LeMarr complained because the map separates his incorporated town
from the nearby Biltmore and Arcadia areas of Phoenix.
He said more than just geography is involved, saying that his town has an agreement to share the
cost of fire services with that area of Phoenix, with Phoenix firefighters actually staffing town fire
equipment. And half of town residents get city of Phoenix water.
And officials from Litchfield Park on the western edge of the Phoenix area are less than pleased
that their residents are in the same district as - and possibly will be outvoted by - people living in
Yuma.
But all of them appear to have been victims of the legal requirement for the commission to protect
minority voting strength.
That's part of what happened to the district where Cajero Bedford now lives.
Commission members were attempting to create a "majority minority" district out of large
portions of Pinal and Gila counties. That meant drawing the lines in a way to include as many
Hispanics as possible and exclude as many who are not.
By extension, that meant putting Democrats into that minority district and shifting Republican
areas into the adjacent one.
But the law also requires that all districts be close to equal in population. So that required finding
areas to add to that non-minority district.
And that, in turn, pulled the line not only into northern Pima County, including Oro Valley and
Marana, but all the way around the west side of the Tucson Mountains, down all the way to Gates
Pass Road - and three blocks beyond where Cajero Bedford lives.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_ab9bdb84-2c2b-11e1-8f73-001871e3ce6... 5/23/2012
Some upset with redistricting panel's new legislative lines - East Valley Tribune: Arizona
Page 2 of 3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 137 of 164
In testimony before the commission, she pointed out that the lines were drawn to keep some
communities of common interest together at the expense of those in her area who are now being
politically separated from Tucson.
"The feeling of the residents of the Tucson Mountains is that Oro Valley and Saddlebrook are
getting their way," she said. "And so the people on the west side, the Tucson Mountains, are
getting the shaft."
But the five-term state legislator said she won't be among them, stuck in a district heavily
dominated by Republicans.
"I'm going to move," she told Capitol Media Services on Wednesday, saying she already has a
house in what's left of her old southwest Tucson district.
While Cajero Bedford has decided what the new lines mean to her, it remains to be seen how they
will affect not only other incumbents but also the political makeup of the Legislature.
Last year was a low point for Democrats, with Republicans taking 21 of 30 Senate seats and 40 of
60 House seats.
On paper, the new maps would seem to ensure that the GOP will maintain its hold on both
chambers.
Using one political yardstick, there are 16 safe Republican districts and up to 11 where a
Democratic candidate would have an edge. That leaves just three districts where the voting
patterns and party registration figures are close enough that it could go either way.
But a different measurement based on weighting various prior elections all the way back to 2004
finds seven districts which might be considered competitive.
The vote by the redistricting commission on both the legislative and congressional maps is not
necessarily the last word. Now the U.S. Department of Justice gets to review both plans to ensure
compliance with that provision of the Voting Rights Act that nothing in the plan dilutes minority
voting strength.
That determination is not as simple as it sounds.
The commission has created districts where minorities make up a majority of the population. But
the Department of Justice may be interested in some other figures.
One is the number of voting-age Hispanics in the district, given the relatively higher percentage of
children among Hispanics compared with some other groups.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_ab9bdb84-2c2b-11e1-8f73-001871e3ce6... 5/23/2012
Some upset with redistricting panel's new legislative lines - East Valley Tribune: Arizona
Page 3 of 3
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 138 of 164
But there also is the fact that the Census Bureau, whose population figures form the basis for the
division, counts people whether they are in this country legally or not. So the commission has also
tried to figure out how many Hispanics who are of voting age are citizens.
Those changes can make a difference.
In the new version of the district on Tucson's southwest side, for example, Hispanics make up
57.7 percent of the population. But by the time citizenship and voting age are factored in, their
share drops to 44.4 percent.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_ab9bdb84-2c2b-11e1-8f73-001871e3ce6... 5/23/2012
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 139 of 164
EXHIBIT 14
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 140 of 164
ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
4:53 p.m.
Location
Fiesta Inn (Fiesta Ballroom I - Conference Center)
2100 South Priest Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282
Attending
Colleen C. Mathis, Chair
Jose M. Herrera, Vice Chair
Scott Day Freeman, Vice Chair
Linda C. McNulty, Commissioner
Ray Bladine, Executive Director
Buck Forst, Information Technology Specialist
Kristina Gomez, Deputy Executive Director
Stu Robinson, Public Information Officer
Mary O'Grady, Legal Counsel
Joe Kanefield, Legal Counsel
Bruce Adelson, Legal Counsel
Reported By:
Marty Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter #50162
www.CourtReportersAz.com
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
58of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 141
1
2
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
this down here.
3
4
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
VICE-CHAIR FREEMAN:
9
Well, if you have
In fact, it's a good thing my
phone has a mute button.
7
8
Okay.
anything that you want to add, feel free.
5
6
Yeah, I'm getting parts of
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
I'm not sure what that means,
but. . .
So, what do, what do the commissioners feel on
10
this, the legislative map?
Are there other areas to explore
11
or go into based upon what Mr. Desmond did?
12
Do you like what Mr. Desmond did?
13
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
Madam Chair.
14
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Mr. Herrera.
15
VICE-CHAIR HERRERA:
I'm extremely, extremely
16
confident of the work that we've done these past few months,
17
in creating solid majority-minority districts, in creating
18
solid non majority-minority districts.
19
with the exception, I think, the technical changes that we
20
need to do, which I hope they're done soon, I'm more than
21
ready to submit the map to DOJ.
22
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
23
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
And I am, you know,
Ms. McNulty.
I think I would have one
24
request of Mr. Desmond, and that is that we just look at the
25
Tucson Mountain issue, if that's agreeable.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
59of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 142
1
2
I just want to understand what the issue is there,
with the following background.
3
My recollection is that we made that change
4
because we were improving LD 4, the voting rights district.
5
And, and I don't want to do anything that will degrade the
6
voting rights district.
7
I think that's ultimately the bottom line.
8
But at the same time, you know, if we have split a
9
community, and we could make it whole without impacting
10
anything, I would just like to look at that before we
11
continue.
12
Would that be possible?
13
WILLIE DESMOND:
14
And I can -- all right.
15
Yes.
So in red is the
legislative draft map that you approved back in August.
16
Let me make this a little. . .
17
And we have been studying this issue.
18
Ken just passed down, I believe, some reports that
19
kind of show you the changes that have happened to this
20
Legislative District 3.
21
22
I'd be happy to walk you through those and also
just show you, show you what's happened.
23
Bear with me for one second.
24
Okay.
25
So, District 3 currently is Tucson Estates,
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
60of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 143
1
2
Valencia West, most of Drexel Heights, a portion of Tucson.
Initially, when we passed the draft map, it was
3
those areas, additionally some unincorporated area, the
4
Tucson Mountains and a portion of Marana.
5
6
7
It had a little bit less in Tucson here, and a
little bit more down in south Tucson.
If you look at the first page of this report, what
8
you can see is the different changes, the different swaps
9
with the different districts.
10
Legislative District 4, although it had a very
11
strong minority percentage in the draft map, did have a
12
fairly low ability to elect.
13
approved and had us do was to improve the voting strength of
14
minorities in Legislative District 4.
15
So one of the changes that you
Now, that happened down here, in south Tucson, in
16
that District 4 came in -- initially it ran along the border
17
of the Tohono O'odham reservation here.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It came in and took some population from districts
number -- from District No. 3.
It took roughly -- or it took exactly
8,855 people.
That was a very strong area that did quite a bit
of good to District 4.
In order to rectify that, District 3 had to be
adjusted a couple of different ways.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
61of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 144
1
One of those ways was that it came into this area
2
of Tucson.
And if I turn off the census place and turn on
3
the census block group, this is shaded by voting age
4
Hispanic percentage.
5
So you can see it gave up some good areas on here.
6
And then it came into District 9 and really took
7
the best of what District 9 had to offer, which was right
8
here.
9
10
And this mitigated, you know, its loss to three
somewhat -- or its loss to four somewhat.
11
12
Additionally in order to approve the voting
strength, it also shed the Tucson Mountains.
13
14
As you can see that was probably the weakest area
of the district.
15
When you compare that area to the rest of the
16
district in the tentative final, you'll note that the
17
Hispanic percentage of tentative final legislative
18
District 3 is 56.5 percent.
19
Tucson Mountains was 17.8.
Hispanic percentage of the
20
And this is on the second page.
21
You can look at some of those percentages, and
22
that kind of illustrates the reason why that area was
23
removed.
24
25
The other changes that happened between two and
three, I believe, were changes to reflect some splits that
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
62of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 145
1
had happened in neighborhoods, trying to avoid those.
2
So initially the line, again, was red, and we kind
3
of cleaned it up following some more of the major roads,
4
following 22nd, and then coming straight down.
5
remember exactly what street this is.
6
7
But coming straight down.
So, I'd be happy to answer any other questions or,
you know, show you.
10
11
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
16
This is Senator Cajero
Bedford, and she filled out a request to speak form earlier.
14
15
Madam Chair, may I
speak?
12
13
Straight down here on
12th Street.
8
9
I can't
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
much.
Thank you very
I appreciate it.
In looking at the map, if I were to suggest some
17
changes for that southern part where you -- number four,
18
where you need some more population, would it be possible to
19
take out the area of between Broadway and 22nd Street to
20
change that, to give that, in exchange to take in the whole
21
Tucson Mountains from 22nd to Ina?
22
And I had sent a letter to -- to the Commission
23
earlier about the White crossover voters, which I didn't
24
realize was a consideration.
25
I read Mr. Adelson's letter -- article in the
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
63of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 146
1
2
3
4
5
6
Capital Times about how that is considered.
And the Tucson Mountain area, primarily White,
17 percent, but as you go farther north it becomes Whiter.
So as far as Ina, it has a good number of
Hispanics that grew up on the south side.
So I would say that in that area that we've talked
7
about, they are what Mr. Gallagher -- Mr. Adelson, excuse
8
me, had talked about, which is an important criteria.
9
that is the White crossover voter.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
And
Because in 2002, they elected two Hispanic and one
Portuguese legislators.
And then in 2010 they elected two Hispanics and a
Native American.
So they are the crossover voters that I believe
the Department of Justice is looking for.
So I would -- the Tucson Mountain, as I said,
17
area, the whole neighborhood, from Silverbell to Ina, to be
18
included, and somehow maybe take out of the bottom part of
19
the district, which might include the Pascua Yaqui, into the
20
other area, or somehow put the Pascua Yaqui into number two
21
with the Tohono O'odham.
22
So I would suggest to rework that bottom area to
23
include a very important populated neighborhood area that
24
does vote for the Hispanics.
25
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Thank you.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
64of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 147
1
Any questions on that?
2
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
So those would be
3
my suggestions.
If you need some more for four, then take
4
in across the bottom on this side, to add to the top part of
5
the district.
6
The western part perhaps.
7
This map is very interesting.
8
I wish I had seen this earlier.
9
The Hispanic population, while you were talking
10
about the number being a low number, we are populating
11
pretty fast, us Hispanics.
12
Nobody laughed.
13
So, anyway, that would be my recommendation, is to
14
take off and to give to four the western part there.
15
16
And then you would be able to add in the Tucson
Mountains.
17
Because that really just slices that whole area.
18
That should be going straight up, along -- it should be
19
aligned with the mountain park, the Saguaro National Park.
20
That should be the western boundary.
21
22
And then Silverbell should be the eastern
boundary.
23
Do those suggestions make sense?
24
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
25
I think we understand the
lines.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
65of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 148
1
It would be good to see actually on the map,
2
Willie, if you can, just the street level, going into
3
Silverbell.
4
I know there are some streets on there.
5
I'm just curious.
6
WILLIE DESMOND:
7
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
8
Which streets?
Silverbell, which is a
north-south.
9
WILLIE DESMOND:
Silverbell runs right here.
10
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
11
boundaries has been -- could be 10, pretty much, to
12
Sweetwater, because there's not much population up until you
13
get to Graham.
14
15
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Actually the
Where is the Tucson Mountain
Association neighborhood?
16
I'm trying to see it on the map.
17
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
18
Do we have a pointer for
the senator?
19
WILLIE DESMOND:
20
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
21
I do.
What was your
question?
22
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
The Tucson Mountain
23
Association, is that the name of the neighborhood that was
24
split?
25
WILLIE DESMOND:
So up here right where my thing
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
66of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 149
1
is moving, that's Ina Road.
2
3
4
5
Silverbell runs right here, kind of parallel to
the I-10.
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
from here.
I'll have to go up there.
6
Is that all right?
7
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
8
WILLIE DESMOND:
9
10
area here.
Yeah.
The area that was removed is this
So these census -- between this red line and
this black line is what was removed.
11
This is 22nd right down here.
12
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
13
14
I can't read it
Saguaro Park is
the mountain right there, and Ina right there.
So this whole -- this is a large, this area, this
15
area are very large parts of the membership, these two as
16
far as through here.
17
These are very large area of the Tucson Mountains
18
that have been taken out.
19
mountains right here.
20
This is the ridge of the
This is the bulk of -- because I told you I spoke
21
with Mr. Verburg.
22
bulk of the Tucson Mountain Association, even though it goes
23
farther north, that's just because of the mountains.
24
25
And this area, this whole area is the
But the membership is not that heavy here, but
it's this whole area.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
67of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 150
1
This whole area is Tucson Mountains.
2
I think he used the words 10,000, I can't
3
remember, residents.
4
is in a minus 8,000.
So, I think that district, District 3
5
So it would take in some more of these residents.
6
And then needed for No. 11, somewhere around that
7
big area that could be taken in.
8
So this whole area.
9
There's only a small part.
10
11
So the Tucson Mountain has literally been sliced
up.
12
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
13
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
14
15
Any questions?
The organization
is 78 years old.
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
Can you just tell us what
16
the population of that area is and how, you know, moving it
17
would affect things?
18
WILLIE DESMOND:
19
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
20
Sure.
Whether it would dilute --
what it does to four and what it does to 11.
21
WILLIE DESMOND:
22
So, to add this area back into District 3 -- just
23
Okay.
let me make sure my baseline is all set.
24
So that would move 4,698 people.
25
I'm just going to do it, and I can tell you what
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
68of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 151
1
the difference is.
2
The -- I believe the issue that we've identified
3
was that before that change District 3 had a voting age
4
Hispanic percentage of 50.1.
5
After that change, that drops to 49.18.
6
I know 50 doesn't necessarily have to be a key
7
number, but I think that was -- we made every effort to keep
8
the district above 50 percent HVAP.
9
10
I can tell you what it did to some of the other
key races.
11
It is a fairly strong voting district.
12
So District 3 had a mine inspector support
13
percentage of 69.1 before the change.
14
is 67.98.
After the change, it
15
So 68 percent, practically speaking.
16
Presidential '08 percentage of 67.3.
17
18
19
20
21
22
to 66.4.
That dropped
So nine-tenths of a percent.
I don't have in this table available the CVAP and
Hispanic populations.
We couldn't run a change report and have that
available.
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
Madam Chair, may I
23
suggest that you put back some of the south part of the
24
district, part of it, to get the Hispanic population
25
percentage higher, and then take out from the western part?
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
69of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
I think that's part of the
analysis that we had done earlier.
We had spent a lot of time on LD 4.
we wound up, I'm afraid.
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
I thought it was
Oro Valley that was the problem.
What about taking out that area between Broadway
8
and 22nd and putting it back into two?
9
difference?
10
That's where
Would that make much
Maybe not taking out the whole thing, but if you
11
take out pieces from the middle and pieces from the bottom,
12
but if you could put that whole area back in, like you just
13
did, and that's -- that population number is not that high
14
for the Tucson Mountains, is it?
15
Did I -- I heard 1,600.
16
That's not that high, and I know that District 3
17
18
was lower than the required.
So even without adding in from the bottom, by
19
adding in the Tucson Mountain, that would still put us below
20
the minimum population per district.
21
KENNETH STRASMA:
22
23
Madam Chair, if I may offer an
opinion on some of these changes.
The -- as Mr. Desmond pointed out, there is the
24
perhaps psychological threshold of 50 percentage plus
25
Hispanic voting age population, which this moves it under.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
70of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 153
1
The district is nevertheless a strong district and
2
can absorb this population, so I don't feel that we would
3
draw a DOJ objection or harm the district's ability to
4
elect.
5
If the Commission were to choose to make this
6
change, it would be in response to other of the criteria,
7
the preserving communities of interest, not strengthening
8
the district because the -- it actually does lower the
9
Hispanic percents and the electoral strength.
10
11
That said, however, I believe the district could
absorb those, that population, without trouble.
12
I -- if the Commission chose to make the change, I
13
believe that just putting Tucson Mountain back in three from
14
11 is the cleanness way to do it without affecting the other
15
changes.
16
I would recommend against doing anything that
17
undid any of the changes that you made to LD 4 because
18
that's something that we spent a considerable amount of time
19
working on.
20
And perhaps Mr. Adelson can speak more to the
21
question of the importance of the 50 percent HVAP threshold.
22
And I should point out that we have other
23
districts that appear to be clearly effective districts that
24
are under 50 percent HVAP, so it's not a bright line test
25
for us.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
71of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 154
1
2
BRUCE ADELSON:
Madam Chair, would you like me to
address that?
3
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
4
Can I just, before we do that though, I just want
5
6
Yes, I would.
to ask, Mr. Desmond, if he can highlight this on the map.
I was looking to actually see what the boundaries
7
are of Tucson Mountain Association, and I'd like to just see
8
it on the map specifically, what these boundaries.
9
The north is Twin Peaks Road.
10
Silverbell Road.
11
Boulevard.
12
Mountain Park.
13
14
The east is
The south is 22nd, slash, Starr Pass
And west is Saguaro National Park and Tucson
I don't know that if that western boundary shows
up in a layer of any kind.
15
WILLIE DESMOND:
What was the northern boundary?
16
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
17
Let me check.
18
Yeah, Twin Peaks Road.
19
I wish I could help you.
20
WILLIE DESMOND:
21
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
22
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
23
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
Twin Peaks Road, I think.
I've got it.
Madam Chair.
Oh, there it is.
While this --
24
Twin Peaks Road would include Marana, they are not active in
25
the association, and that is where Mr. Verburg this
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
72of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 155
1
afternoon -- that has all grown into the Tucson Mountain
2
Association over the 78 years.
3
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Okay.
4
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
The areas of
5
interest are, are the mountains between Ina and 22nd, which
6
is Starr Pass Resort area.
7
8
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Association would still be split, in other words.
9
I mean, if we're not taking it all the way --
10
11
So Tucson Mountain
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
before.
It was split
Yes.
12
And that was of no consequence really.
13
Those people joined just because maybe they lived
14
in that, but they were not the active part of the
15
association.
16
17
If you need more Hispanics, then put in a little
bit more, maybe half of what you took out at the bottom.
18
It's pretty heavily populated in that area.
19
I appreciate you taking the time with this.
20
It's been a great concern to an environmental
21
group that's been fighting a lot of issues over the years.
22
23
WILLIE DESMOND:
here.
I apologize.
The line goes a little far right
That takes it to I-10.
24
But this line, if you can see the --
25
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Yeah, that's Silverbell.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
73of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 156
1
WILLIE DESMOND:
2
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
3
WILLIE DESMOND:
4
That's Silverbell.
Right.
I'm not exactly sure how far to
the west to go.
5
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
6
WILLIE DESMOND:
7
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
8
9
10
11
12
13
But --
park, which is hard to find.
WILLIE DESMOND:
I don't know either.
To the national
But the mountains pretty much.
Yeah, but it's this area,
essentially, that's in red.
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
And that's part of
the criteria is the proximity to the park.
I mean, it's a natural area.
It's a shame that
14
over the years that more of it -- of that area is not
15
included and preserved.
16
WILLIE DESMOND:
So, the blue line again, I just
17
changed it to make it a little easier with the red, is the
18
draft map, the black line, is the tentative final map.
19
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
Madam Chair, so
20
he's saying that the black -- new black map would be the new
21
final tentative map?
22
I have trouble hearing.
23
WILLIE DESMOND:
24
So this line right here is the tentative final map
25
Oh, yes, I apologize.
that was approved on the 21st or 22nd.
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
74of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 157
1
2
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
So would the new dark map, could that possibly be
the new final draft map?
5
6
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
The blue line is the one from
the October map the way it was.
7
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
8
WILLIE DESMOND:
9
Could that be
approved -- the new approved draft map?
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
I think we need to hear
from legal counsel.
14
15
Yeah, that was the approved draft
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
12
13
Yes.
map.
10
11
Which is
what we're fighting against.
3
4
Right.
Tell us again, Mr. Desmond, if you would, the
metrics, please, that change.
16
WILLIE DESMOND:
Yes, it would be helpful.
I'll
17
just give you all the metrics of the district, as a whole,
18
and also the metrics of this area.
19
20
So the metrics I'm giving you is the district of a
whole are without this area, not with it included.
21
22
23
24
25
But the district as a whole is 56.5 percent
Hispanic.
Tucson Mountain area is 17.8 percent.
It's got an
HVAP of 50.1, compared to 15.2.
Hispanic citizen voting age percentage of 43.1,
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
75of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 158
1
compared to 12.7.
2
3
Hispanic registration percentage of 41.8, compared
to 12 percent.
4
5
And presidential '04, Hispanic candidate of choice
in District 3 got 66.2 percent of the vote.
6
7
In district -- in the Tucson Mountain area, the
4700 people, is 49.6.
8
Secretary of state, 2006, was 67.3 to 48.4.
9
President '08 Dem was 63 -- or 67.3, compared to
10
49.3.
11
And the mine inspector was 69.1, to 48.5.
12
Adding that area back in lowers the Hispanic
13
percentage to, I believe, 49.2 percent from 50.1.
14
voting age Hispanic.
That's
15
The total minority percentage is still at 59.6.
16
And the mine inspector, again, goes from 69.1 to
17
67.98, so 68 percent.
So a drop of about .1 percent.
18
COMMISSIONER McNULTY:
19
WILLIE DESMOND:
20
I have Hispanic CVAP.
21
CVAP I do not know off the top of my head.
22
Let me just double check and see if I have that
23
CVAP do we know?
CVAP.
number somewhere.
24
If I don't, Ken might be able to find it.
25
I don't have total CVAP.
I just have Hispanic
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
76of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 159
1
2
3
4
5
CVAP.
The Hispanic CVAP again is 12.7 percent, compared
to 43.1 district-wide.
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
May I ask a
question, Madam Chair?
6
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
7
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
8
proposed map for District 4, you took in one small
9
neighborhood in the southern part of Tucson.
10
11
12
13
Sure.
Go ahead.
Back on the
And it seemed
like you included it with Yuma.
I don't -- I haven't looked at that boundary to
the west of four.
So have you taken in one small section of the
14
southern part of Tucson and included it with Yuma?
15
is that what the map is?
16
WILLIE DESMOND:
17
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
18
disservice too.
19
know the area.
20
21
22
That's correct, yes.
That's, that's a
That goes back to where I grew up, and so I
You know, it's a population that would not be
attending these meetings.
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
23
should take a break.
24
to our poor court reporter.
25
Is that,
Well, I'm wondering if we
I've been negligent in offering that
It's 6:48 p.m. already, so maybe we can take a
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
77of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 160
1
ten-minute break and come back and talk about this some
2
more.
3
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
4
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
5
(Brief recess taken.)
6
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
7
Sure.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll enter back into public
session.
8
The time is 7:16 p.m.
9
And we were in the midst of talking about the
10
11
Tucson Mountain area on the legislative district map.
WILLIE DESMOND:
Over the break I was able to
12
produce change reports for what that would do to Districts 3
13
and 11, so we'll put those up now.
14
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
15
MARY O'GRADY:
16
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
17
MARY O'GRADY:
Oh, great.
Madam Chair.
Ms. O'Grady.
We had an opportunity to look at
18
the numbers here and just a couple things.
And I invite,
19
again, my colleagues to supplement if they'd like to.
20
I wouldn't advise any changes -- I mean, there
21
were kind of couple things that were discussed, one just
22
changing Tucson Mountains, one doing some other changes,
23
that might also impact four.
24
changes that affect four.
25
And we wouldn't advise any
The purpose of this change was in part to improve
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
78of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 161
1
four, and the numbers show that eliminating Tucson Mountains
2
made LD 3 stronger as a minority district.
3
a strong minority district with or without Tucson Mountains,
4
but as Willie pointed out, now it's one of our majority HVAP
5
districts.
6
under that 50 percent mark.
7
Now, it's still
And with the Tucson Mountain change, it would be
On the crossover voting issue, the numbers that we
8
have that were provided show that the Tucson Mountain area
9
is under the 50 percent level of support for the minority
10
candidates in the statewide races that we've used as
11
indicators on that front.
12
So, that's sort of the voting rights analysis.
13
It would still be effective if you made the
14
change.
15
we're looking at, the nature of the changes that we're
16
looking at at this point of the process.
17
It wouldn't be majority HVAP.
In terms of what
Earlier on I might have said this is a policy call
18
for you all, but right now we're just looking at changes
19
just to address technical or legal issues.
20
change doesn't solve a legal problem.
21
22
23
24
25
And making this
There's no retrogression as a result of removing
Tucson Mountains.
And so this doesn't -- this wouldn't be one to
solve a legal problem.
It would be one that would address a community of
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
79of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 162
1
interest issue.
2
But at this phase in the process, and, again,
3
given the nature of the kinds of changes we're trying to
4
address, it wouldn't be my recommendation to make this as a
5
legal change.
6
7
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
counsel or commissioners or mapping consultants?
8
9
Any other comments from other
MARY O'GRADY:
Just in terms of the information on
the change order, that shows most of the key metrics that
10
you look at, they do go down from the old district, you
11
know, if you, if you try to put district -- Tucson Mountains
12
back, everything goes down a little in terms of the things
13
we look at for our minority districts.
14
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
15
Any other comments on this or other proposed
Okay.
16
technical changes or anything on this, on the legislative
17
map for now, that we want to talk about?
18
19
Because I know there are other items on the agenda
that deal with technical changes that we're talking about.
20
21
It would be good to kind of get through all of
those tonight, if we can.
22
23
SENATOR OLIVIA CAJERO BEDFORD:
Madam Chair, thank
you.
24
Thank you for listening to me.
25
Unfortunately some of us in the public who were
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
80of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 163
1
not involved so much with the process won't understand the
2
words and technical changes.
3
neighborhood.
4
Technical changes seem like a
And sometimes we say, well, why couldn't the line
5
have been drawn this way instead of having it go over to
6
Yuma all the way over to south Tucson.
7
8
So, in looking at it, it doesn't make sense to
residents.
9
Anyway, I thank you for your time.
10
CHAIRPERSON MATHIS:
Thank you for coming.
11
Our next -- I guess the only other technical
12
change that we haven't really discussed yet is this number
13
five, discussion and possible action regarding renumbering
14
the congressional and/or legislative districts, discussion
15
of possible action to adopt and certify final legislative
16
and/or congressional districts.
17
18
This renumbering issue, we just heard public
comment tonight again.
19
We heard that at our Yavapai County hearing.
20
And, I open the floor to other commissioners to
21
22
discuss.
I guess I think it's okay from a legal perspective
23
if just technically to change the numbers, is that correct,
24
if we wanted to?
25
JOSEPH KANEFIELD:
Madam Chair, we don't see any
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com
116of 164
Case 2:12-cv-00894-ROS-NVW-RRC Document 23-1 Filed 05/23/12 Page 164
1
STATE OF ARIZONA
2
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
)
)
)
ss.
3
4
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceeding was
5
taken before me, Marty Herder, a Certified Court Reporter,
6
CCR No. 50162, State of Arizona; that the foregoing
7
115 pages constitute a true and accurate transcript of all
8
proceedings had upon the taking of said meeting, all done to
9
the best of my skill and ability.
10
11
DATED at Chandler, Arizona, this 18th day of
January, 2012.
12
13
__________________________
14
C. Martin Herder, CCR
Certified Court Reporter
Certificate No. 50162
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
© Arizona Litigation Support Court Reporters
www.CourtReportersAz.com