Tag: doug ducey
Ducey signs controversial abortion bill
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals
Census says no more seats in Congress for Arizona
Arizona is not going to get more representation in Washington.
And one political demographer said it may be because some Hispanics chose not to respond to the decennial survey.
The Census Bureau announced Monday that Arizona had not gained enough population in the past decade, at least not in the official count, to merit another congressional seat. That keeps it at nine members of the U.S. House.
This is the first time since the 1960 census that Arizona has not picked up a seat.
According to the announced tally, Arizona added 746,223 new residents between April 1, 2010 and the same time a decade later, bringing the tally to nearly 7.16 million. That amounted to an 11.6% growth rate.
By contrast, the country as a whole grew just 7.1%.
But other states grew faster. And given how the congressional seats are allocated, Arizona just didn’t add enough population to merit that tenth seat.
And here’s the thing: Arizona wasn’t even close to getting one of the seats given up by other states with lagging population growth.
The Census Bureau reports that New York was the first state to fall off the bottom as it divided up the 435 seats that were available. Had census workers found an additional 89 people in the Empire State it would not have lost a seat to somewhere else.
Next in line for those available seats was Ohio which fell short and also lost a seat.
In fact, both Texas and Florida with their growth rates were closer to picking up additional seats — Texas already is getting two and Florida getting one — before Arizona would have been in line for No. 10.
The results were surprising given the general consensus in the political community as well as experts like Election Data Services that Arizona would be seating an additional member of Congress.
Political consultant Chuck Coughlin called the findings “shocking.” He was not alone.
“It’s hard to believe, with all of our incoming population — and with states like California losing a seat for the first time in state history — that we’re not getting one,” said consultant Stan Barnes.
But Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services said he sees a common thread.
He said not only was Arizona predicted to gain a seat based on annual population estimates but that Texas was due to pick up three new seats and two in Florida.
“What do all those states have in common?” Brace asked before answering his own question: large Hispanic populations. And that, he said, is no accident.
The key, Brace said, was the effort by the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the survey.
“It caused people to not respond to the census,” he said. “And, as a result, they were all lower than what they were anticipating.”
Brace said it’s irrelevant that Trump failed to get that question on the form.
“If you got all of those press reports and commentary and everything else talking about how much Trump doesn’t want people to respond if they’re Hispanic, you don’t necessarily have to have a question on the survey,” he said.
It wasn’t just Trump pushing the question.
Gov. Doug Ducey told Capitol Media Services two years ago he was siding with the administration, even as he was asked whether that could lose the state a new congressional seat.
“There’s a number of different questions the federal government chooses to ask,” he said. “I think to get a handle on who’s here, who’s a citizen and who’s not is a fair question.”
There was no immediate response from Ducey who put $1.8 million into a campaign in a bid to boost the state’s response rate.
Instead, an aide to Ducey directed reporters to a prepared statement from AZ Census 2020, the state’s official effort to get a complete count.
“While we’re disappointed Arizona didn’t receive an additional congressional seat, we want to recognize last year’s historic effort,” the organization said in a prepared statement on Twitter. That included what the group said was a statewide campaign to reach underrepresented communities,” with the state having its highest self-response rate to the count in decades.
Coughlin said there will be losers in all this. And it starts with rural Arizona.
It will be months before the Census Bureau releases more detailed data for each state. But annual statistics collected by the state show that the largest population growth has been in central Arizona, meaning Maricopa and Pinal counties.
Now the existing nine districts need to be redrawn to put about 795,500 individuals in each district. What that will mean is that to get sufficient residents to create a rural district — where the population growth is the slowest — the geographic size of that district or districts will have to be even larger.
Put another way, residents of Sierra Vista could soon find themselves sharing a representative with residents as far away as the Grand Canyon.
Coughlin also said the status quo could help Democrats.
With a 10th seat, he said, there would be a chance for Republicans, who now have just four of the state’s nine House members, to push for some major revisions that might give them a better chance. But with the status quo, Coughlin said that will lead to pressure to simply start with the current lines — the ones that give the Democrats that 5-4 edge — and just make minor revisions.
But Barnes said he’s not sure any of this helps either party.
“Both parties wanted that tenth seat,” he said.
“Both parties thought they could have that tenth seat” with new lines, Barnes said. “And now no one gets to play.”
Then there’s the human equation.
There are state legislators who were hoping that a new seat, plus radically redrawn lines, might create a political opportunity for them. They now have to reevaluate their own futures.
And if they stay put, then that does not open up their own seats for others hoping to become state lawmakers.
Still, things will change because of that constitutional requirement for congressional districts of roughly equal population. But that, too, is not a simple matter of finding 795,000 people in the same area and declare it a congressional district.
Prior to 2000 it was up to the legislature to draw the decennial lines both for their own districts and the seats in the U.S. House. That usually resulted in districts that favored the party in power.
That year voters wrested away that power, creating the Independent Redistricting Commission. It includes two people each appointed by party leaders; those four choose a fifth political independent to serve as chair.
That 2020 initiative specifically sets some limits and guidelines on the commission’s decisions.
For example, they are supposed to respect communities of interest and use political boundaries when possible.
Commissioners also are required to create as many politically competitive districts as possible. And that could create a mandate to take what have proven to be “safe” districts, like those occupied by Republican Andy Biggs and Democrat Raul Grijalva, and find ways to try to even them up by party registration.
Arizona’s congressional delegation:
1912 (statehood) to 1943 — 1
1943 to 1962 — 2
1962 to 1973 — 3
1973 to 1983 — 4
1983 to 1993 — 5
1993 to 2003 — 6
2003 to 2013 — 8
2013 to 2033 — 9
New law gives more money for water projects
Gov. Doug Ducey on April 21 signed a bill that provides larger grants for developing water projects in rural areas, but questions linger on whether there will be any money for them.
House Bill 2388, sponsored by Rep. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, expands the amount of a single grant from the Water Supply Development Revolving Fund from $100,000 to $250,000.
The recipient water provider must be located in a county with a population of fewer than 1.5 million people.
While Griffin said the fund isn’t just meant for rural areas, some experts who work with water believe the benefits can greatly help many rural communities.
Chris Udall, executive director of the Agribusiness and Water Council of Arizona, said funding for water projects is a job provider and can help communities prosper.
“I come from rural Arizona myself, and there are some areas that could use an economic shot in the arm,” Udall said.
Changes made are to broaden the definition of water providers to include all municipal water delivery systems and adding a public water system.
The fund dates back to 2007 as part of a legislative package that allowed municipalities and counties to enact ordinances to require a sufficient water supply for lands before they could be offered for sale or lease.
The Arizona Finance Authority Board administers the fund to provide financial assistance to water providers for constructing water supply projects and obtaining additional water supplies to meet demands.
Also, the bill expands the definition of water supply development to include planning, designing, building, or developing facilities and adding structures that actively or passively recharge stormwater to a list of qualifying facilities.
The fund, however, is currently empty. The fiscal-year 2015 General Appropriation Act enacted a one-time $1 million appropriation to the fund that was exempt from lapsing.
That amount was swept the following year, and the fund has not received any money since.
As Arizona faces a potential water shortage for the first time next year because of a 20-year drought that is shrinking the Colorado River, there are calls to do more regarding water infrastructure and getting more sources of water for Arizona.
Patrick Bray, executive vice president of the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, said: “I think it’s just solid policy to invest in those water infrastructure projects, and we think that anywhere we can invest in our future of water that’s what we should be doing when the opportunity arises.”
Bray said that because of the state budget surplus officials should be thinking bigger in terms of developing Arizona’s water infrastructure.
The river operates in a “tier zero” status where the state contributes 192,000 acre-feet of Arizona’s 2.8 million acre-feet annual entitlement to Lake Mead coming entirely from the Central Arizona Project system.
Cities and tribes are considered a high priority, so they will not be affected by the cuts during a possible “tier one” shortage when it comes to Colorado River water.
As for whether the fund will get more usage given chances of future storages, Griffith said she’s pushing for the fund to be used in conjunction with another bill to study the water supply.
“We do have a bill this year to look at this issue, HB2577, a water supply study. It’s a money bill so we have to come to an agreement on the budget before this bill moves forward,” Griffin said in an email statement.
The bill would appropriate $5 million from the state General Fund in fiscal year 2022 to the Department of Water Resources to study potential sources of water for Arizona.
She said that other funding has been prioritized in the past and that she will be looking to secure funding soon.
Sweeping abortion bill passes on party lines
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals
GOP lawmaker kills election bill, threatens to torpedo session
Vowing to vote against any and all election bills and keep the Legislature in session until the Senate’s audit of 2020 election results is complete, a Mesa Republican dealt an unexpected blow to a bill that could stop tens of thousands of Arizonans from receiving mail ballots.
Sen. Kelly Townsend said she still supports the bill, which she has already voted for in some form three times this year. She looks forward to voting for it if and when it returns after the audit is done, she said, but not before.
“Otherwise we’re doing [the audit] for no reason,” Townsend said. “It’s for show. It’s for replying to our constituents that ‘Yes, we’re doing an audit, but if we find irregularities you’re going to have to wait until 2024.”
Townsend said she told her Republican caucus last week and reminded the Senate majority whip on Thursday that she wouldn’t vote for any election bills and would not support adjourning the legislative session until the audit was complete. Legislative leaders told her they hoped to end the session in two weeks, and they tried to call her bluff today.
“They tried me out to see if I’m serious or not,” she said. “I mean it when I say that we have no business going home.”
Townsend said she will keep all options on the table when it comes to voting for a budget, the only thing lawmakers must do before they can adjourn sine die. Republican leaders need her vote on a budget, but they could adjourn with support from Democrats.
Bill sponsor Michelle Ugenti-Rita, the Scottsdale Republican who chairs the Senate Government and Elections committee, had a different explanation for Townsend’s “no” vote: Ugenti-Rita refused to hear several of Townsend’s own election bills in committee, and her vice chair was smarting over it.
“Obviously this bill isn’t going to pass because the senator from District 16, in a show of spite and a show of rage, has decided to vote against it,” Ugenti-Rita said. “It’s disappointing that someone who purports to care about election integrity would do this.”
Ugenti-Rita also voted against the bill, a procedural move that will allow her to revive it for a reconsideration vote at some future date.
In complaining about Townsend’s “no” vote, Ugenti-Rita called back to another confrontation the pair had that was indirectly related to the bill. This is the second time Ugenti-Rita’s bill to prune the Permanent Early Voting List failed to pass the Senate: in February, Sen. Paul Boyer, R-Glendale, voted against it because he misunderstood the language.
Ugenti-Rita retaliated by attempting to claw back one of Boyer’s priorities, a bill expanding access to school vouchers, from the House. Upon realizing it was a retaliatory move, Townsend called on her colleagues to vote for bills based on their merits, not the sponsors.
“It’s disappointing to be on the receiving end of someone’s temper tantrum, especially when this individual lectured everybody several weeks ago,” Ugenti-Rita said Thursday.
Townsend, who left shortly after the vote, acknowledged that her vote wasn’t on the merits of Ugenti-Rita’s measure. In fact, she likes the bill, which would remove voters from the Permanent Early Voting List if they fail to vote by mail in all elections over the course of two election cycles. Voters who turn in just a single mailed ballot in that four-year period would remain on the list, which House Republicans decided to rename the Active Early Voting List following numerous comments about how dropping the “P” would change to “EVL,” pronounced “evil.”
Townsend’s ultimatum could spell disaster for other partisan election legislation, including a bill from Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, to change ID requirements for mailed ballots. Mesnard and Ugenti-Rita held a joint news conference surrounded by a rowdy crowd of Trump supporters on Monday to pressure House Speaker Rusty Bowers to bring their bills to the House floor after sustained backlash from business leaders.
Ugenti-Rita succeeded, and her bill appeared likely to reach Gov. Doug Ducey today, but Mesnard has still struggled to find traction for his. Most other partisan election bills are now dead.
Ducey vetoes sex ed bill, issues executive order instead
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals
Ducey to station troops on the border
School leaders decry Ducey dropping mask mandate
Ducey orders ban on ‘vaccine passports’
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals
Election integrity shouldn’t be a partisan issue
Arizonans can all agree: it should be easy to vote but hard to cheat.
The Arizona Legislature has heard dozens of bills this session that are intended to renew trust in our elections by ensuring that every legal vote counts. This week, it is important for them to consider SB1713 and SB1485 to secure our early voting system. Arizonans support these measures, and our legislators should continue working with Gov. Ducey to secure our elections.
These reforms aren’t new and shouldn’t be controversial. In 2005, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission Report on Federal Election Reform was written for an American people who were losing confidence in the election system. We now face a crisis of confidence: most Americans believe either the 2016 or 2020 presidential election results were illegitimate. Today the report’s words of warning ring true: “If elections are defective, the entire democratic system is at risk.”
That’s why it’s so imperative to strengthen our elections and restore trust in their results. The Arizona Legislature is doing just that. The Carter-Baker commission noted that, “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” To head off that potential, legislators are pushing several smart measures to secure our mail-in early voting system.
SB1713 would be a step in the right direction. This bill would require a form of voter ID for mail-in voting to make early voting more transparent and secure. This simple provision would help bring early voting requirements in line with in-person voting requirements and the Carter-Baker recommendation of voter ID for absentee voting.
Early voting still needs improvement, though, and SB1485 would get the job done. This piece of legislation would improve our Early Voter List by only sending ballots in the mail to those who are likely to return them. When a voter chooses not to use their early ballot in four consecutive elections (two primaries and two general elections), the voter will be notified and will have the option to confirm that they would like to stay on the Early Voter List. This is common sense — sending ballots to those who don’t use them wastes taxpayer resources while increasing the potential for abuse.
The Legislature has already seen success in passing bipartisan and common-sense election bills this year, such as HB2054. Gov. Doug Ducey recently signed this reform into law, which had overwhelming and bipartisan support — only one legislator voted against it. This common–sense measure now mandates the secretary of state compare death records with voter registrations and remove deceased voters. This new law serves as a reminder that secure elections are not a partisan issue.
Another important bill to tighten election laws and protect our system from vulnerabilities is HB2569, which Ducey signed into law on April 9. This law will prevent private groups from giving money to fund Arizona election operations, removing the corrupting influence of outside money from our election.
The law solves an urgent problem: In 2020, Arizona received $4.8 million in grants from a nonprofit group to ostensibly fund election operations. But the Foundation for Government Accountability found these funds disproportionately increased voter turnout on the left. All Americans ought to be in agreement that whether it’s foreign governments or private interests, our elections will not be bought.
Opponents falsely assert that election integrity bills to fix Arizona’s mail-in ballot system are an example of “voter suppression,” but nothing could be further from the truth. When voters trust elections, more will turn out to vote. Sixty-nine percent of Arizona voters support a photo ID requirement before casting a vote, for example. Voters know that every fraudulent vote negates a legally cast vote, robbing a citizen of their voice. An election system susceptible to fraud, or even suspicions of fraud, erodes the integrity of our elections, and allows fraudulent votes to be counted — that is the true voter suppression.
Reforms like these being protect the right to vote of all eligible Arizonans. Now is the time for the Legislature to act, as they have already done with HB2054 and HB2569, to restore confidence in our elections. The Legislature and governor should swiftly embrace SB1713 and SB1485, so that regardless of which side wins in our state, Arizonans will have confidence in our elections.
Jessica Anderson is executive director of Heritage Action for America. Nathan Duell is the Western regional coordinator for Heritage Action and a lifelong Arizonan.