GOP: Voter maps aided Democrats

Republicans trying to discredit Arizona's current legislative-district map told a federal court Monday that the new political lines were drawn deliberately to benefit Democrats and dilute the power of GOP voters.

Monday's session kicked off a weeklong hearing before a panel of three federal judges who must decide if the new map was skewed so heavily that it unconstitutionally denied Republicans their right to equal protection under the law.

At stake is whether the new boundary lines, which were used in the 2012 election, will hold or whether the panel will send the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission back to the drawing board.

On Monday, attorney David Cantelme laid out his case that everything from the way the five-member commission picked its attorneys to the way it set about drawing 30 new legislative districts was designed to benefit Democrats.

And he suggested the commission had access to incumbent politicians' home addresses, which showed up in a computer file of the commission, although it later could not be found.

Access to such data, and using it to create a legislative map, would be a big "no-no," Cantelme observed as he questioned Commissioner Richard Stertz.

Stertz, a Tucson Republican appointed to the panel by then-Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, agreed it would be improper but said he had no knowledge of such a file.

The commission consists of two Republicans, two Democrats and a registered independent, who serves as chairman.

Through his questioning of Stertz, Cantelme established that the commission quickly split along partisan lines, with Chairwoman Colleen Mathis voting with the Democrats on the commission's more pivotal issues.

Cantelme zeroed in on the changes made to the commission's 10 "majority minority" districts, which were key to ensuring that the Arizona map would meet the criteria of the federal Voting Rights Act. The U.S. Department of Justice must preclear any changes to election law in Arizona to ensure the ability of minorities to elect a candidate of their choosing is not diminished.

Once it was clear the 10 districts would likely pass Voting Rights muster, Cantelme said, the commission continued to adjust the lines and in most cases reduced the number of minority voters in those areas while still keeping them at levels that would help boost Democratic candidates.

That, Cantelme argued, allowed the commission to "pack" Republican voters into a smaller number of districts while relying on a combination of minority voters and non-minority Democrats to dominate more districts than they otherwise should have. However, Stertz testified that he had complained that the commission was "hyperpacking" districts with Democrats.

After the commission completed its work in early 2012, it was widely believed that Republicans could stake claim to 16 or 17 of the 30 districts and Democrats to 10, with the remainder being competitive.

After the 2012 election, Democrats gained seats, ending the GOP's supermajority. The Senate has 17 Republicans and 13 Democrats, while the House is split 36-24.

A handful of Republican voters, including the wife of Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, filed the lawsuit last year challenging the new boundaries.

Today, the court will hear from a state Democratic Party official who closely followed the redistricting process. Cantelme is expected to grill the official, D.J. Quinlan, over an e-mail he received from then-state Rep. Richard Miranda, D-Phoenix, outlining four districts that would favor minority candidates.

Quinlan forwarded the information to Democratic Commissioner Linda McNulty, and court filings have suggested that this might be evidence of a Democratic conspiracy.

The e-mail outlined the preferences of the Arizona Redistricting Minority Coalition for four minority-dominated districts. Other groups also submitted their own versions of legislative maps, which the commission welcomed.

Stertz testified that the four districts were "untouchable" as the map was being drawn.

Commission attorneys, who had just begun their cross-examination of Stertz late Monday and have yet to call their own witnesses, have said the plaintiffs' arguments are thin at best.

"In the end, plaintiffs can only point to the pattern that the Republican plurality districts are generally slightly overpopulated and Democratic plurality districts are slightly underpopulated, but that alone is not evidence of partisan bias," commission attorneys wrote.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here