A state commission that draws the boundaries of Arizona’s legislative districts plans to appeal a judge’s order that its legislative maps were drawn without giving preference to making the 30 districts competitive.
The outcome of the court battles could determine if the same district lines will apply in the 2008 and 2010 elections or whether they will be changed.
The Independent Redistricting Commission, which voted Nov. 17 to appeal the decision, had rejected an offer from the Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting to work out a compromise and end the ongoing legal challenges.
Paul Eckstein, the attorney for the coalition, suggested that slight boundary changes to two legislative districts might resolve the issue of whether the state has enough districts where candidates stand roughly equal chances of being elected, regardless of party registration.
Those two are District 11 in east Phoenix and Paradise Valley, and District 26 in northern Pima County.
Nearly two weeks ago, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the minority coalition’s arguments that the maps lacked a competitive factor.
Arizona voters in 2000 created the Independent Redistricting Commission, with the idea that it would take the politics out of the once-every-decade exercise of drawing congressional and legislative boundaries.
Battle shows no sign of ending
But the legislative lines have been wrapped up in legal battle almost since they were drawn, and the dispute shows no signs of ending soon.
Commissioner James Huntwork argued that the results of the Nov. 7 election prove that the districts are already competitive, pointing to Democratic gains in several districts that had a history of electing Republicans.
But state Rep. Pete Rios, a member of the coalition and a Democrat from Hayden, said other factors fueled the Democrats’ gains, such as nationwide discontent with Republicans.
He said those seats would likely swing back to Republican control in the 2008 presidential-election year if the current district boundaries are still in place.
The coalition voted 4-0, with member Andrea Minkoff abstaining, to take the issue back to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Commission Chairman Steven Lynn said it’s important to have the court clarify some of the nuances of the boundary-drawing process, such as what is the proper role of competitiveness.
Ms. Minkoff suggested that she and the other four commissioners take a fresh look at their much-disputed map and figure out how to make it more competitive, even while pressing a legal appeal. Her motion was rejected 4-1.