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

​DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly.

DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly speaks to the gathering at an adoption ceremony in Torrington.

Laura Tillman / CT Mirror

What’s Behind the Smiles on National Adoption Day

In the past 21 years, I’ve fostered and adopted children with complex medical and developmental needs. Last year, after a grueling 2,205 days navigating the DCF system, we adopted our 7yo daughter. This year, we were the last family on the docket for National Adoption Day after 589 days of suspense. While my 2 yo daughter’s adoption was a moment of triumph, the cold, empty courtroom symbolized the system’s detachment from the lived experiences of marginalized families.

National Adoption Day often serves as a time to highlight stories of joy and family unification. Yet, behind the scenes, the obstacles faced by children in foster care and the families that support them tell a more complex story—one that demands attention and action. For those of us who have navigated the foster care system as caregivers, the systemic indifference and disparities experienced by marginalized children and families, particularly within BIPOC and disability communities, remain glaringly unresolved.

Keep Reading Show less
Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep Reading Show less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep Reading Show less