Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Arizona's independent redistricting panel faces a partisan intervention

Arizona legislative district map

The population of Arizona's legislative districts now vary by as many 20,000. Republicans want to shrink that to 5,000 at most in redistricting for the 2020s.

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Republicans in charge of the Arizona Legislature are hoping to restrict the powers of the state's independent redistricting commission before the new maps are drawn next year.

At issue is just how close to identical in population the state's legislative districts should be. A variation of as much as 10 percent had been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, and at the start of this decade the independent panel used that benchmark— which means about 20,000 people in Arizona — in order to create several reliably Democratic districts where Latinos and Native Americans were very likely to get elected.

GOP lawmakers are now pushing a measure that would limit the population differential to 5,000 in the coming decade, hoping that would help them secure more seats and grow their narrow majorities at the statehouse in Phoenix.


The measure won initial passage in the state Senate on Monday. If the House goes along and GOP Gov. Doug Ducey signs the bill, it would put the population restrictions before the state's electorate as a referendum this fall.

If the voters agree, it would be a significant curb in power for an independent commission the voters themselves created just a decade ago, a landmark moment in the crusade against the notion that partisan politics should be the driving factor in legislative mapmaking.

Democrats say the change would limit the abilities of tribes and minority communities to elect representatives of their choice. And they say putting such a hard rule on population deviation would make it impossible for the commission to make good on other aspects of its mandate, especially keeping as many communities of interest together as possible.

Republicans say their plan is to get the districts as close as possible to the one-person, one-vote concept that's a modern bedrock of representative democracy, and that the current deviation has resulted in the effective disenfranchisement of many conservative and suburban voters.

Arizona has 30 legislative districts, each with one senator and a pair of representatives.

"Equal representation is one of the foundation principles of our country, and this is just trying to make this clear in our constitution," Republican Sen. J.D. Mesnard said at a hearing this month, where he noted he has 221,000 constituents but a neighboring lawmaker represents just 203,000.

"People in my district have less representation because there are more of them. At what expense?" he asked. "I guess it's at the expense of equal representation for others."

Democratic Sen. Martin Quezada said that, regardless of the desire to have all voters in districts of almost identical size, Arizona's history and political geography requires racial parity to be given more consideration.

The five-member commission will draw new legislative maps to be used starting in 2022 based on results from this spring's census. (The panel will also draw a new congressional map, but the GOP proposal would not affect that work.) While the one-person, one-vote concept says districts should be nearly equal, the panel also must consider the federal Voting Rights Act, shape, geography, communities of interest and competitiveness.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2016 that Arizona's state legislative population variances were constitutional. "The Constitution ... does not demand mathematical perfection," Justice Stephen Breyer said. So long as mapmakers "make an honest and good faith effort to construct legislative districts as nearly of equal population as is practicable," he wrote, "practicable" deviations can be allowed for "legitimate considerations" like what the commission was ordered to consider.


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less