1 / 20

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Analysis of Public Hearings Round One

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Analysis of Public Hearings Round One. Types of Public Input. Public Meetings Actual testimony Additional material handed in Public Hearings (Round 1) Actual testimony Blue Sheets handed in Additional material handed in Web Submissions

shelby
Download Presentation

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Analysis of Public Hearings Round One

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Arizona Independent Redistricting CommissionAnalysis of Public Hearings Round One

  2. Types of Public Input Public Meetings • Actual testimony • Additional material handed in Public Hearings (Round 1) • Actual testimony • Blue Sheets handed in Additional material handed in • Web Submissions • Snail Mail • Phone Goal is to ensure everyone who voiced an opinion is heard for the mapping process.

  3. Round One by the Numbers • Breakdown • By city • Number of attendees who signed in • Number of people that requested to speak • Total number of comments recorded

  4. Round One by the Numbers

  5. Round One by the Numbers

  6. Round One by the Numbers 93% of those who requested to speak, spoke

  7. Comments Based on Criteria Total summary of the number of times the public commented on one of the six criteria for Redistricting • Voting Rights Act – 49 • Equal Population – 12 • Compactness or Contiguous – 34 • Communities of Interest – 265 • Geographic Features / Political Boundaries – 114 • Competiveness – 236 • Other – 292 8

  8. Round One by the Numbers

  9. Round One by the Numbers

  10. Competitiveness236 comments Important Lower Priority Competitiveness- should only be used after other criteria COIs should be prioritized before competitiveness Current CD and LD are competitive now. Compactness, COI, and Geographic Boundaries are more important that Competitiveness. • Competitive districts are important- they get people involved • Need more competitive districts on both sides of aisle. • Competiveness is the most important of the criteria • More competition = better candidates 11

  11. CompetitivenessDefinitions offered by public • Roughly equal voter registration among Is, Ds, Rs • Competitiveness means looking at whole district - would a qualified candidate have a chance of winning? • Either D or R can win an election every 2 or 4 years • The majority of legislative districts being competitive in the general election • Elections not decided in the primary 12

  12. Communities of Interest265 comments • Partisanship has no factor in COIs • People live with likeminded people- should use COIs as main criteria • Keep Flagstaff with Prescott as they are a COI and have geographic similarities • Don’t keep Flagstaff with Prescott as they are not a COI with similarities • Light rail is a tie to a COI • Oro Valley is a COI—talked about newspaper description and likes it 13

  13. Recurring Input • Summary of top two to four public comments, by city, that included specific recommendations • July 21 – South Phoenix • Support Senator Leah Landrum Taylor’s map – 8 • Make LD 15 competitive – 3 • Ahwatukee as a COI – 3 • July 22 – Nogales • Keep Santa Cruz County in two districts – 2 • Create three border districts – 3 14

  14. Recurring Input July 26 – Bullhead • Keep Mohave County together – 13 • Create a rural Congressional District – 10 • Keep Tri-Cities together (Kingman, Bullhead City, Lake Havasu) – 4 • Create a river district – 4 July 27 – Casa Grande • Keep Pinal County intact – 5 • Keep Pinal County in one Congressional District – 4 15

  15. Recurring Input July 28 – Prescott • Create two rural Congressional Districts – 8 • Yavapai County as a COI – 4 • Put Verde Valley with Flagstaff – 4 July 29 – Window Rock • Don’t split Navajo Nation – 2 • Don’t gerrymander Hopi – 2 16

  16. Recurring Input July 30 – Hon Dah • Create two rural Congressional Districts – 16 • Keep Legislative District 5 together – 8 • Create eight rural Legislative Districts – 6 August 1 – Flagstaff • Don’t separate Flagstaff – 13 • Create two rural Congressional Districts – 6 • Don’t include Prescott with Flagstaff COI – 5 17

  17. Recurring Input August 2 – South Tucson • Keep Congressional District 8 together – 7 • Keep Legislative District 30 together – 6 • Keep Legislative District 26 together – 5 • Move Tucson to Congressional District 7 – 4 August 3 – Glendale • Support Arizona Minority Coalition maps – 5 • Put Tonopah Valley together – 3 18

  18. Recurring Input August 4 – Sierra Vista • Create three border districts – 12 • Keep two border districts – 4 • August 5 – Phoenix • Light rail as a COI – 4 • August 6 – Tucson • Keep Legislative District 26 intact – 7 • Keep Legislative District 30 and CD 8 intact – 3 • Discussed how to address prison population– 3 • Oro Valley as a COI – 3 19

  19. Types of Public Input Public Meetings • Actual testimony • Additional material handed in Public Hearings (Round 1) • Actual testimony • Blue Sheets handed in Additional material handed in • Web Submissions • Snail Mail • Phone Goal is to ensure everyone who voiced an opinion is heard for the mapping process.

More Related