Everyone wants to draw the lines.
The people who create the boundaries for the legislative and congressional districts often control which party wins those districts. That process has shaped the politics of today as much as anything, with Republicans doing a better job of controlling it nationwide than Democrats.
Arizona has been a major exception, though. We voters approved an independent redistricting commission in 2000, and it operates much differently, and better overall, than the Legislature-drawn districts in other states.
But it has had some problems, and since it’s independent, the legislators naturally want to take back some control over who gets elected to their seats. That’s what a proposal by Senate President Steve Yarbrough would do — but subtly.
Yarbrough wants the Legislature to ask voters to consider a series of changes to the redistricting commission, and his proposal passed the Senate Wednesday. Pay attention to this one, because it could be as big an influence as anything on our politics.
“My goal is to make this the most fair and bipartisan commission it could possibly be,” Yarbrough said Wednesday.
And on its surface, the proposal is not unfair or overtly partisan.
Broadly, Yarbough is asking the voters to expand the independent redistricting commission from its current five members to nine.
This is a good idea, I think.
Under the current system, the commission consists of two Democrats, two Republicans and one independent. As a result, that one independent gets immense power, because he or she can essentially decide, by voting with one party’s members, which party will draw the lines.
Under Yarbrough’s proposal, the commission would have three Democrats, three Republicans and three independents. This is a good thing, because it gives more representation to independents, who are 34 percent of the electorate. In fact, Democrats should feel pretty pleased by their over-representation: They make up 30 percent of Arizona voters, and Republicans are 35 percent.
But of course, it’s not as simple as that.
Previously, the Commission on Appellate Court nominations vetted and selected all the candidates for the commission — 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans and five independent. From those party members, the Democratic and Republican leaders of the state House and Senate each picked one. Then those four picked the independent member.
Under the new system, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the two legislative chambers pick all the members except one — even two of the independents. The appellate court commission only picks the five candidates for that last independent seat. And the previous eight selections pick that ninth member, who becomes the chair.
So, in essence the same problem with the previous commission would be repeated. The Republicans would pick an independent who leans right, and the Democrats would pick an independent who leans left, and the ninth commissioner would have all the power.
The changes would also put more power in the hands of the legislators, who would not be forced to pick from a pre-selected pool of candidates. They could appoint virtual stand-ins for themselves if they wish, which they undoubtedly would.
The debate boiled down to a party-line vote, with the Republicans winning 17-13. Democrats, like Sen. Steve Farley, argue, “It would inject more partisanship into the process.”
The former independent chair of the redistricting commission, Tucsonan Colleen Coyle Mathis, told me “It should be the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments choosing 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 10 independent candidates.”
She added, “I don’t think the Legislature should be picking the independents.”
It’s too bad Yarbrough’s proposal isn’t closer to what Mathis is suggesting. That could actually work.
Bauserman out
You all may remember that Tucsonan Christine Bauserman got a political appointment to Trump’s Interior Department after working hard to help him win Arizona in 2016.
That ended this week after CNN published an expose of Bauserman’s social-media postings. This surprised me, not because she made postings that were arguably anti-gay (praising Russia for having a “pro-heterosexual flag”) anti-Muslim and made ridiculous claims about President Obama and the Clintons.
I just didn’t realize that anyone cared about that kind of thing anymore, especially considering that her boss, the president, loves conspiracy theories and makes outrageous claims about opponents. Seems like a bit of a double standard.
CNN quoted a statement from the Interior Department saying, “The positions expressed by Ms. Bauserman are inappropriate and unacceptable, and they are not consistent with those of the Secretary or the Trump Administration. The Department has accepted Ms. Bauserman’s letter of resignation.”
I reached out to her by phone Thursday but didn’t hear back.
Money up in LD11
Something interesting is going on in the race for Arizona House in Legislative District 11, a district that includes much of Oro Valley, Marana and Pinal County. I spoke with Democrat Hollace Lyon and her wife Linda earlier this week about the race and was surprised to hear about their fundraising.
Both of them have run races before, but this year it’s Hollace, and she reported raising $57,036 through the end of last year. That is more than twice as much as any other candidate in this predominantly Republican district.
Incumbent Republican Mark Finchem has reported raising $25,850 so far — by far the second-highest total. Linda Lyon told me they focused on raising money last year, taking advantage of Democrats’ anger over Donald Trump and to avoid the congestion of races this year. She said the total now raised is over $70,000.
By comparison, in 2016, the biggest fundraiser for the LD 11 House race was incumbent Vince Leach, who is running for Senate this year. Leach reported raising $76,363 for that race. Traditionally, Democrats have run as publicly funded candidates in the district.
