AZ redistricting case

[.Shane.]

I know we're all worked up over the SCOTUS upholding OBAMASCOTUSCare and gay marriage cases, but the case that has the most potential to affect democracy and, that could be the more historically significant case 30 years down the road was also settled last week.

Arizona State Legislative vs. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was settled by 5-4 vote, in favor of the Ind Redistricting Commission.

Essentially Arizona voters in 2000 approved a law that puts redistricting in the hands of an independent commission.

The legislature didn't like this because that means they couldn't gerrymander the living **** out of their districts to insure the party in charge stays that way.

California has a system very similar to Arizona's. I was worried that this case, if it went the other way, would strike these down.

Interestingly voters of all partisan stripes prefer this. AZ is pretty red and passed this and CA is pretty blue and passed a similar method. The message is the average citizen wants independently created legislative districts.


---

More details. AZ's commission is composed as follows:
"The Arizona commission has five members, with two chosen by Republican lawmakers and two by Democratic lawmakers. The final member is chosen by the four others."

CA's is:
"The State Auditor then randomly drew three Democrats, three Republicans, and two applicants from neither major party to become commissioners on 18 November 2010. Finally, these first eight commissioners selected six commissioners from the remaining applicants"

--

I'm a huge proponent of this and I hope this will become a national movement.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Unfortunately the REAL message is "when we want to gerrymander our districts to maintain our job security, we better do it by creating a process that involves a committee with "independent" in the name."

In California, as yet, there is no indication that the "independence" of the commission has had any genuine impact on the situation...unfortunately.

 

[.Shane.]

In California, as yet, there is no indication that the "independence" of the commission has had any genuine impact on the situation...unfortunately.

I disagree. The CA districts (for HoR and State Assembly) made a significant difference. A lot of races were much more competitive and, I think, in many cases more moderate/reasonable candidates (of both parties) won.

Unfortunately the REAL message is "when we want to gerrymander our districts to maintain our job security, we better do it by creating a process that involves a committee with "independent" in the name."

In both AZ and CA the commissions were created by Initiative/Referendum. And, in both states, the legislative bodies express opposition. It's the legislature in AZ that sued, you might have noticed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I disagree. The CA districts (for HoR and State Assembly) made a significant difference. A lot of races were much more competitive and, I think, in many cases more moderate/reasonable candidates (of both parties) won.

In both AZ and CA the commissions were created by Initiative/Referendum. And, in both states, the legislative bodies express opposition. It's the legislature in AZ that sued, you might have noticed.

They sued because they were not as successful at suborning the process as the legislature in California was. My redistricted district wouldn't refuse to elect a Republican if it was a zombie formerly known as Benito Mussolini.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the intent.

 

[.Shane.]

They sued because they were not as successful at suborning the process as the legislature in California was. My redistricted district wouldn't refuse to elect a Republican if it was a zombie formerly known as Benito Mussolini.

lol, well, I didn't say it was perfect, but I think it's significantly better.

There still will be a few very blue or red districts, that can't be helped, ironically, w/out gerrymandering, but overall there is better balance.

 

[illram]

Yeah I like this and although it is not perfect it's absolutely a step in the better direction.

 

[LucyDuke]

Yup. That is better than before. But really we need to do it with math. I wonder whether we ever will.

 

[.Shane.]

Yup. That is better than before. But really we need to do it with math. I wonder whether we ever will.

Assuming that's not a euphemism, what do you mean?

/waves

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Assuming that's not a euphemism, what do you mean?

/waves

The only real requirement of "fair districting" is that each representative represents about the same number of people. That could be done using census data and an algorithm that could produce a map literally "untouched by human hands."

 

[LucyDuke]

We can't trust people to be honest, so we need a way to draw the lines without anyone's influence. We make rules about how to divide up districts based purely on geometry, and let the computers do it. There will still be "unfair"nesses, but nobody can secretly deliberately tip the scales, because we can all see exactly how the decisions are made.

There are different methods, shortest-split line is popular.

Here's a nice summary of how it works.

Link to video.